Do I really dare? Back dating observations

[saintz]

Simple really. In my opinion 99% of all so called back dated cars look just like what they are. Not the real thing.

They remind me reverse kit cars, (relatively) modern trying to look old.

I really don't mean to offend but it's a subject that bugs me a lot lately.

OK guys convince me otherwise.

[SCWDP911]

oh boy...

[kneedragger302]

I am pretty new to the Porsche Community but I have to also agree on one end of the spectrum. Some backdates look very "fake" or uncomplete. I though have seen many backdated cars that look stunning. I feel it has alot to do with the owner/builder and how much time they spend attending to the details. One other thing thats a big turn down is that so many people call their cars "1973 RS Carrera Replica's". By throwing a duck tail on your car, I feel its not a RS replica. To be a replica I feel it has to be correct in most terms...expecially visually. Waynes black RS replica is a perfect example of a very NICE Replica. Just my 2 cents.

[Paulporsche]

I think you have to decide what it is YOU want out of YOUR car. Is it to increase your enjoyment, raise its value, fool an unwitting buyer, recapture an era? That's really what counts.

BTW I am not advocating the third option.

[curtisaa]

Originally Posted by saintz

Simple really. In my opinion 99% of all so called back dated cars look just like what they are. Not the real thing.

They remind me reverse kit cars, (relatively) modern trying to look old.

I really don't mean to offend but it's a subject that bugs me a lot lately.

OK guys convince me otherwise.

Why ????

[Porsche-O-Phile]

At some point in any "restoration" you have to cross the bridge of how to reconcile certain changes in technology. For example, what about tires? Oil? Spark plugs? Do they even still make the same tires as the ones that originally came on the car? In many cases, no. How about headlights? Try to find a set of old tungsten-filament 7" rounds lately? Good luck.

In any car's life there are going to be changes to the original specifications - part #'s get superceded, regulations change, availability of parts becomes an issue, etc.

I think the goal is to keep it as authentic as possible but if you've got a compelling reason to update something or change it, it's a judgment call you need to make. For example, I just spent the past four weeks rebuilding my rear taillight housings (since a "new" pair would have cost close to $1,000). They look excellent and are better protected from future corrosion/damage than the originals from the factory ever were (better sealed, POR-15-ed, bulb contacts permanently sealed in place instead of just held on with flimsy metal tabs that like to break off, etc.) I am also changing from the incandescent bulbs to LED clusters. Some might find this utterly unacceptable, but IMHO, you'll never know the difference unless you're looking for it or I turn the lights/brakes/turn signals on. They're brighter, run cooler, draw less current and are "instant on". All advantages in my eyes. So to me, it's acceptable, even on an older 911.

That said, I do keep all the original parts I take off, just in case I ever want to go with my "authentic", inferior technology components.

[stevemfr]

Couldn't disagree w/you more. I think about 60-70% of the conversions being shown on the board here have a good aura of originality about them - even w/ 17" Fuchs. Another 25-35% have a very cool looking mix of old/new (such as Fiskes, etc.). Very few cars shown here on the board have made me retch even ever so slightly. And I'm sensitive on that. Quite in contrast to a huge number of kit cars that I've seen in the same time frame. Outside of the replicas, I've seen maybe a handful of kits that I'd even give an OK to - and only one or two that were what I'd call exciting.

The other thing I object to is the finger-wagging at somebody putting together what they think is a cool car. Building an exact replica is not what most of the guys here are after - building something that puts a smile on their face is.

At this point I could very easily be brought to rant about how I think the 'all-100%-original' guys are more than silly. Some Porsche tech or race-shop mechanic runs out and does a quick, stop-gap repair and 35 years later, people are counting and measuring the rivets used in order to exactly re-create the repair... But if that's what gets these guys off, more power to 'em. Who am I to judge?

[tcar]

Originally Posted by saintz

Simple really. In my opinion 99% of all so called back dated cars look just like what they are. Not the real thing.

They remind me reverse kit cars, (relatively) modern trying to look old.

I really don't mean to offend but it's a subject that bugs me a lot lately.

OK guys convince me otherwise.

Doesn't bother me nearly as much as bastardizing a very good longhood.

"I've gotta have a longhood 'Hot Wheels' lookalike", with a good body donor car.

Terrible waste.

[Sam 69 Gulf]

I don't agree!

This car started as a 2007 Cayenne Turbo and I think it came out OK.
Seriously though - I propose we start a fwd dating thread. How to squeeze a G50 and 3.6 into a longhood.

OOhhhh - heat, that would be nice too....

OK, after another random post I will sign off.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Someday many years from now when I've got a spare $20k to spend, I envision a 3.6 with PMOs in my '74.

And no, I wouldn't have any problem with that either. As long as it looks like "just a Targa" on the outside.

[911pcars]

I think most here would jump at the chance to have a 3.6 in the rear. Same goes for internal modifications that improve performance.

Visually, there might be more resistance to updating a car than backdating. For example, a long hood modified to look like a later model year short hood. There really shouldn't be that much difference or objection, but there is.

As for making a regular 911 look like an RS or RSR or Turbo. That's a matter of personal opinion. Would those same people object to a regular Mustang equipped to look like a Shelby Mustang? How about a stock Chevelle outfitted externally to look like a "COPO", "Yenko" or SS Chevelle? Same?

Sherwood

[w21055]

I disagree as well. I am starting one myself and although mine will probably end with the CIS, I would like to do some carbs, but I think from the outside the car will look pretty close to what it is suppose to look like. Right now finding some nice fenders has been the hold up to getting really going.

Thanks
Phil

[NoLift911]

Some look good - some don't...

I guess I have never really grasped the concept of backdating a car that is already 20+ years old in a model that has looked the same for essentially 30+ years give or take....?

Dunno - guess I am slow or missing something.

But I read threads about some donkey that is going to back date his 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89 Carrera...? Dude - you are backdated its 2008...hello...? Dust off the members only jacket and go for a ride in your backdated whip.

Yeah lets tack on another 10+ years just cuz...? Now you are backdated...

The best cars on this board are clean cars - clean mods, clean changes and effective. Purpose built whether street or track. In that mix are some backdated cars...and others.

My take was to remove stupid stuff that looks plain dumb - right from the factory. Flag mirrors? WTF? Big honkin square mirrors on a body like the 911? That is not retro that is two big squares stuck on your door making tons of noise and slowing/weighing you down - they are toomahs, much like the A/C and headlamp washers and fog lights and heated doo dads and stereos etc...

I think it is a mix and match of things without following the herd with trends...minimalist is best. Even though out of the box it is nothing special and was overpriced, the Clubsport was a great idea IMO. Keep the best parts of the 911 but get rid of all the stupid doo dads that turned it into a fat pig...they just really needed to take it a step further with the model.

Ruf bumpers and or backdating and or RSR conversion is not always the answer...just my 02

[Sam 69 Gulf]

hey nolift..
A) please tell me that your avatar is a plate that actualy exists - it would make my day!!
B) 4.01 seconds - really!!
Sam

[ZAMIRZ]

Originally Posted by curtisaa

Why ????

Agreed. This is a dumbest post of the year award candidate.

[Pele911]

It really depends on the quality of the work done. There are many on this board that have done a great job as well as AutoFarm in the UK http://www.autofarm.co.uk/projects/about_recreations

To understand why someone does a backdate you need to understand the love of the original 911 concept. The impact bumpers really impacted (pun intended) the shape and flow of the 911. Just like anything else it comes down to what you think is cool! I absolutely love long hoods and to me they are worlds apart from the 74-89 cars.

[wachuko]

[1982911SCTarga]

Wachuko, that dude in the pic must be thinking about backdating his 356C to an A.

Brian

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by saintz

They remind me reverse kit cars, (relatively) modern trying to look old.

What are those? never seen one, I don't think.

What's the problem? The interior doesn't look the part? Take an SC or Carrera, add a long hood and fenders, bumpers and 15" wheels and w/o checking inside, you'd have to read the VIN to know what year it is. Especially if the windows popped out and the trim was bright.

Now, add some RS door panels and some GT seats and you'd really have a hard time distinguishing what year the base car is.

However, I have to agree just a tiny bit that it's a lot of work to imitate an older car. I began to question the wisdom of this a while back. That's why I designed my one-off bumpers that pay homage to the older cars, but are not an attempt to backdate the car.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

I'm gonna' beat all ur butts and backdate to this:



Just with a 3.6 and PMOs, of course.