Production Report, Better Than COA Options

[914Sixer]

I got my Kardex report on the Creamsicle. This report has more information than the COA from Porsche. COA from Porsche on another Creamsicle. Lots of dealer stuff not listed.

[bkrantz]

I am curious--how did you get the Kardex (and when)? The last news I remember is that Porsche/PCNA stopped issuing both Kardex and COA. Instead, if you haul your vehicle to an official Porsche Classic Center (and pay the fee) they will issue a CTC which will have some production specs, and will let you know if your engine and trans numbers match the originals (but will not provide the original numbers if yours are replacements).

[FlacaProductions]

Reach out to Dave Pateman: david_j.pateman@sympatico.ca
@DaveP here.

[914Sixer]

Got info from Dave yesterday.

[JeffBowlsby]

This is really interesting info, the level of detail is incredible with all the M-codes for what is included in option M778. Don’t think I have seen that anywhere. I should ask Dave run this for my LE.

I did notice the model number indicated is incorrect for a US LE, it should be 473644. Not questioning Dave’s data, just wondering why it is indicated as 473544.

Also, it lists the perf specs for the engine…then qualifies it as ‘except for CA’. Any idea what that means? As far as I know there is no difference between a CA and 49-state 1974 GA-code 2.0L engine. They are identical in every way.

@DaveP

[wonkipop]

This is really interesting info, the level of detail is incredible with all the M-codes for what is included in option M778. Don’t think I have seen that anywhere. I should ask Dave run this for my LE.

I did notice the model number indicated is incorrect for a US LE, it should be 473644. Not questioning Dave’s data, just wondering why it is indicated as 473544.

Also, it lists the perf specs for the engine…then qualifies it as ‘except for CA’. Any idea what that means? As far as I know there is no difference between a CA and 49-state 1974 GA-code 2.0L engine. They are identical in every way.

@DaveP

i got a thought on that - re is their a cali spec 2.0 v 49 states in 74.
and its just a thought.

for a long time it seems 1.8s in 74 were thought of as early and late.
even dr. 914 thought so.
early had vac advance hooked up, late had it disconnected with open hose.
thats how the theory went.

but as we now know, not so.
despite confusing emissions stickers with nothing to distinguish california compliant and USA oompliant until very late in prodution run we now know it went vac advance hooked up for 49 states and disconnected for calif.

could it be that the 2.0s followed a similar spec?

i don't know though. have oollected no data on 2.0s.
but i see from diagrams on your site mr. b that the 73 2.0s had vac advance and then the later ones are notated on diagrams as having the advance disconnected and left as an open hose. kind of just like the two different 1.8 specs? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif)


love the dave p kardex.
seeing what dave gets for info i might just go get him to do one on my car rather than go to VW europe for a classic certificate. he appears to be able to glean identical level of data as VW provides for karmann built ghias. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/beerchug.gif)

[JeffBowlsby]

No functional difference between 49-state or CA-model LEs. The Registry includes at least 18 original Monroney labels, and each indicates the same model # as 473644.

[wonkipop]

No functional difference between 49-state or CA-model LEs. The Registry includes at least 18 original Monroney labels, and each indicates the same model # as 473644.

there certainly was no difference in the 2.0s USA wide in 73.
the CARB documentation i have shows vac advance, vac retard and mech advance for distributor.
at that point in time california was not yet requiring that vac advance be disconnected - for any of the models, either 2.0 or 1.7. only requirement was the car had to be able to run on unleaded or low lead fuel. the 1,7 could run on unleaded 89 RON. the 2.0 could run on 93 according to CARB documents. which i assume was low leaded?

in 74 the CARB documentation shows that the vac advance had to be disconnected for the 2.0s. additionally the 1.8 certification says the same thing. fuel specs are as per 73.

and we know for a fact now that the 1.8s for 49 states had the vac advance connected and were different from the california 1.8s. there were two specs despite the emissions sticker ambiguities. tune up stickers were not ambiguous. and there is nothing in any shop manual or tech spec issued by vw or porsche that shows that difference. there may be but none of us have ever come across it. bear in mind that difference is merely a vac hose connected or not connected. thats it. nothing else.

i'm not saying the 2.0s followed that pattern. but it took a lot of research into the 1.8s with a lot of examples collected and examined closely to tease it out and discover it.

could be still that was the case for the 2.0s. you are not going to find it in emissions stickers thats for sure. we know that from the 1.8s. you would only be able to assertain it from unmolested original examples and possibly from tune up stickers if the 1.8s are anything to go by. but the difference, if its there, and its a big if, will just come down to that vacuum hose and nothing else. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/beerchug.gif)

[jhynesrockmtn]

I used Dave for the kardex on my 356. Great customer service. I keep meaning to order his report for my LE.

[dr914@autoatlanta.com]

Dave is a great guy and spends loads of time on researching build facts. He helped me many many times.

Reach out to Dave Pateman: david_j.pateman@sympatico.ca
@DaveP here.

[davep]

Let me try to clear up some confusion.
There are Kardex, but not for the 914; Kardex are Warranty index cards used from 1950 to 1969.
There are production/shipping computer printout records from 1970 through 1980.
There are Production order documents available for about 600 of the 914/6; mostly 1971 & no 1972.
These are the source documents available to me, and also what PCNA uses for their CoA/PPS/CTC. The PCNA documents are derivatives of the source documents and do not contain all of the data possible on the source documents.
My Reports are based on source documents and translated to the best of my ability to include as much relevant information as possible. One of the very important items (not mentioned by PCNA) is the model # (473xxx) which sets the base configuration of the car. I understand what Jeff Bowlsby is saying about the the difference between what he expected, and what I provided. There does appear to be a disconnect between what the window sticker says and what the data I get says. However, I tend to go with Factory information whenever possible. In this case PCNA is close to but not exactly Factory. A pet peeve of mine is that the LE and related GT model did not get its own model code.
Another peeve is that PCNA has almost always made an error with the country code. C02 is the equipment code for the USA except for states covered by C13 and later by C03. Everyone that got a CoA that stated equipment for Finland had a laugh at PCNA's expense because PCNA had a myopic view. I do not have enough data to be certain, but it appears that C13 covered CA, NY and possibly PR from 1970 through 1973. In 1974 C03 covered CA at least. The model #'s do change with the country code. I do need to get a few sets of data for the California cars to be sure of the model and country codes. So far, only 14 of the data sets are 914/4 out of the 250 sets I have obtained; and about 2000 Kardex.
I admit that I do make errors, and I really do appreciate anyone that will help me correct them. There is a lot of misinformation out on the web, and in print so we need to gather it all in, examine it carefully for inconsistencies and build an accurate database.

[Unobtanium-inc]

This is a Kardex, information on an actual card. Kind of like when you used to have to research at the library as a kid.

[wonkipop]

Let me try to clear up some confusion.
There are Kardex, but not for the 914; Kardex are Warranty index cards used from 1950 to 1969.
There are production/shipping computer printout records from 1970 through 1980.
There are Production order documents available for about 600 of the 914/6; mostly 1971 & no 1972.
These are the source documents available to me, and also what PCNA uses for their CoA/PPS/CTC. The PCNA documents are derivatives of the source documents and do not contain all of the data possible on the source documents.
My Reports are based on source documents and translated to the best of my ability to include as much relevant information as possible. One of the very important items (not mentioned by PCNA) is the model # (473xxx) which sets the base configuration of the car. I understand what Jeff Bowlsby is saying about the the difference between what he expected, and what I provided. There does appear to be a disconnect between what the window sticker says and what the data I get says. However, I tend to go with Factory information whenever possible. In this case PCNA is close to but not exactly Factory. A pet peeve of mine is that the LE and related GT model did not get its own model code.
Another peeve is that PCNA has almost always made an error with the country code. C02 is the equipment code for the USA except for states covered by C13 and later by C03. Everyone that got a CoA that stated equipment for Finland had a laugh at PCNA's expense because PCNA had a myopic view. I do not have enough data to be certain, but it appears that C13 covered CA, NY and possibly PR from 1970 through 1973. In 1974 C03 covered CA at least. The model #'s do change with the country code. I do need to get a few sets of data for the California cars to be sure of the model and country codes. So far, only 14 of the data sets are 914/4 out of the 250 sets I have obtained; and about 2000 Kardex.
I admit that I do make errors, and I really do appreciate anyone that will help me correct them. There is a lot of misinformation out on the web, and in print so we need to gather it all in, examine it carefully for inconsistencies and build an accurate database.

yes - jeff's spot on about the 2.0s in 74 being identical engine specs and set up whether CA or 49 states.

i did have two really original low mile 74 2.0s stashed in my 1.8 L Jet file.
i'd run across them collecting the L Jet data and downloaded the images and material since the cars were so original. i went back to my files and took a close look at them.
both were delivered as 49 state cars. the vac advance hose was disconnected and the throttle body had the advance port casting undrilled and closed. these matched the CA Spec cars. so its a single spec.

the only other thought i had was the possibility that CAL spec cars had the restricter in the gas tank filler tube for unleaded only. i remember reading about that. but can't remember if that came into effect in 74 or 75. whatever the case - the year it came in - it was for california only, 49 state cars would accept the larger nozzle for regular gas but could run on unleaded. cali was unleaded gas filler nozzle only. if it was 74 that might explain why a car was listed as CAL spec specifically if it had a restrictor.

[wonkipop]

as i understand it - this is a kardex (at least one dating from the 70s or period when 914/6s were built). porsche recorded the actual chassis (vin #) engine number and gearbox number as stick on labels or glued down labels on the actual build sheet as they went. thus the records are all on one document for the stuttgart final assembly cars.



i have never seen a build sheet for a 914/4. ie a karmann built and assembled 4 cylinder car.
i do have a VW build sheet from that period for a 73 412 built at another VW plant.
the build sheets were as i understand it standardized throughout the various VW factories, of which karmann was one. VW part owned and controlled it.



VW did not enter the engine numbers, gearbox numbers or vin numbers on the build sheet as they went. the car was assembled using the production number (sometimes called the karmann plate number on 914s) and engine and gearbox types and code numbers. the vins and serial numbers were recorded at the end of the line on a separate document. a document i have never sighted.

the normal protocol at most VW plants was that the build sheet was taped to a door.



it looks to me like they taped the build sheet to the windscreen of 914s on the production assembly line at karmann. but its hard to find images of sufficient clarity to be certain.
but the build sheets must have been on the car somewhere.



VW are able to provide thorough documentation of cars normally thought of as VW models and built at VW factories. their classic certificates confirm engine numbers etc.
they obviously have final documentation which links the build sheet (order) to the final serial numbers of the major components and the Vin number assigned at the end of the production line.

there is no kardex for the 4 cylinder cars. they were not built by porsche using porsche order protocols - they follow volkswagen production order protocols and systems.

[davep]

Adam is correct, this is a Kardex:

wonkipop is not correct, this is in fact a Fahrzeug-Auftrag or Production Order as I refer to it in my previous post, and it is only the cover page:

a 911 with FA on production line

more pages

motor page

trans page

chassis page

and there are others. You can see with the 911 that there are no stickers on the right side, that means the engine, transmission and VIN were not yet assigned. Factory workers used a paper punch on each item to show it was done.
Here is a page from the computer printout that I use for the 1970 to 1980 cars:
This is a page from the 911 Production book showing actual sequence of production completion:

[JeffBowlsby]

Whoa...this is awesome! Secrets of the holy grail unveiled... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/aktion035.gif)

[JeffBowlsby]

Still trying to make sense of the model number conundrum Dave, its fundamental information. Its not passing the sniff test. As confirmed by their Monroney labels, see exemplars below:

A 1974 914 Model 473544 is a North America-market, GA code 2.0L with Appearance Group.

A 1974 914 Model 473644 is a North America-market, GA code 2.0L Can Am Limited Edition

On the document for 4742915025 in the first post, the 473544 model number is listed as a standard 1974 2.0L, then goes on to indicate the unique Can Am paint code and Can Am equipment under the M778 LE equipment package with most items including individual M-codes. From the perspective of the 473544 model number, this document suggests that the Can Am cars were viewed as a standard 2.0L with a list of the 10 specific M778 options.

Interestingly, the M778 option package includes all 5 Appearance Group items and all 3 Performance Group items offered in 1974 so 8 of the 10 of the Can Am equipment items would overlap a 1974 2.0L car with both AG and PG options. If the above paragraph was the case then the separate need for and designation of Model 473644 would be superfluous, which we know is not accurate. They could have just reduced option M778 to the additional Can Am specific items including the U_ paint package, Targa bar side vinyl delete, black trim items (rear Targa bar trim and foglight grilles), and side lettering. However the Monroney label for Model 473644 does not present it that way.

All together all options combined equate to a Model 473644 and its not clear why the document does not indicate it that way, as the Monroney label indicates it.

Any insight?

[wonkipop]

Whoa...this is awesome! Secrets of the holy grail unveiled... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/aktion035.gif)

yeah my chair got blown right out the window looking through those. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)
wow.

however - there is still the problem of 914/4 build sheets.
if you were lucky enough to find one in a 914 its not going to have engine or gearbox serial numbers on it. the one i have was found under the back seat of a 412 and apparently it was rare that they were there. usually never found in VW cars.
and i guess no one has ever found one in a 914.

but with your porsches built at stuttgart they were compiling the build sheet with the final state of the car on the production order in a single package. i'm told the stickers were used in case when they tested the car the engine was not up to scratch or they blew the engine up on the test drive (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) - in which case they replaced the engine and a new sticker went on top of the original one stuck on the build sheet. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

great stuff @davep

now we just need to find a source for the VW files. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/beerchug.gif)

[wonkipop]

Still trying to make sense of the model number conundrum Dave, its fundamental information. Its not passing the sniff test. As confirmed by their Monroney labels, see exemplars below:

A 1974 914 Model 473544 is a North America-market, GA code 2.0L with Appearance Group.

A 1974 914 Model 473644 is a North America-market, GA code 2.0L Can Am Limited Edition

On the document for 4742915025 in the first post, the 473544 model number is listed as a standard 1974 2.0L, then goes on to indicate the unique Can Am paint code and Can Am equipment under the M778 LE equipment package with most items including individual M-codes. From the perspective of the 473544 model number, this document suggests that the Can Am cars were viewed as a standard 2.0L with a list of the 10 specific M778 options.

Interestingly, the M778 option package includes all 5 Appearance Group items and all 3 Performance Group items offered in 1974 so 8 of the 10 of the Can Am equipment items would overlap a 1974 2.0L car with both AG and PG options. If the above paragraph was the case then the separate need for and designation of Model 473644 would be superfluous, which we know is not accurate. They could have just reduced option M778 to the additional Can Am specific items including the U_ paint package, Targa bar side vinyl delete, black trim items (rear Targa bar trim and foglight grilles), and side lettering. However the Monroney label for Model 473644 does not present it that way.

All together all options combined equate to a Model 473644 and its not clear why the document does not indicate it that way, as the Monroney label indicates it.

Any insight?

the thing is those window labels that look like some kind of computer printout of an order are only good for north american cars where they are being sold through porsche audi division of VWoA. in the rest of the world the cars, whether 4s or 6s were sold through either porsche dealers or VW dealers separately depending on the country.

somewhere there must be a depository at VW with the full details on the build for the 4s.
all of them. north american cars and ROW. likely it would also distinguish or give details on exactly how the variations of the "Can Am" were notated given they were, as you point out jeff, not quite the same in there three different market versions.

[davep]

somewhere there must be a depository at VW with the full details on the build for the 4s.
all of them. north american cars and ROW. likely it would also distinguish or give details on exactly how the variations of the "Can Am" were notated given they were, as you point out Jeff, not quite the same in there three different market versions.

When the VW-Porsche joint venture was dissolved (circa 1974) the building was appropriated by VW and a mountain of paperwork was trashed in order to clear the rooms. I'm pretty sure the records we would like to see were recycled into cardboard.
The N-A LE used a different option code (M778) from the ROW GT cars (M779). I think some money needs to be spent on data for several cars in order to determine model codes and some option codes. I have well over 100 cars in a spreadsheet combining my data sets with window stickers and other sources of model codes. This has brought to my attention several options that have unknown codes. I like to think that my option code list is pretty robust, but apparently 1975 & 1976 added a few new ones.