Kardex 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)