SCCAForums.com

Very odd that they show both belts being available....With A/C and without A/C.

That evidence supports that there might have been a way to get a car without A/C

FM

Howdy,

As I said, I was mostly interested in the who has to prove what part of this...

But that "standard features" sheet also made me think of something else... :-)

On options like Chevy's 1LE, Dodge's ACR, Miata's hard S, Ford's Cobra R, etc. where its got a "delete", that means that whatever you're deleting is standard equipment, and if you choose the option package, they remove it, correct?

Could that be a reason that a parts computer shows A/C and non-A/C belts, yet the "glossy" brochure lists a/c as standard?

I dunno much of anything about Porche & how they do this sorta stuff of course.

Mark

Fastmike:

Very odd that they show both belts being available....With A/C and without A/C.

That evidence supports that there might have been a way to get a car without A/C

FM

 

Tidbits like this are probably why there are options in the parts computer for ac or no ac:

 

A street-legal race variant, dubbed Club Sport, appeared later on with a stripped-out interior including racing seats, revised suspension, and larger wheels and tires, but was offered only in Europe & Australia. A UK-only version called 968 Sport, a Club Sport model with some comfort features added back in, was produced in 1994 and 1995. Porsche briefly produced a turbocharged version called Turbo S—15 were produced in total, only for European sale. The 968 Turbo S was capable (in 1993) of 0–60 mph (97 km/h) in 4.7 s and top speeds approaching 180 mph (290 km/h). A race variant called 968 Turbo RS was added as well; only 4 were produced.

---

I live my life one cone at a time........

it's been proven time and again that what's in the parts manual means little to nothing, that's not considered to be sustainable documentation for german and other cars, you'll find all kinds of parts in there that were never installed on a standard production model

what it really comes down to is what I put in a letter several years back; only 2500 or so US-spec 968s were produced, only a mere handful without a sunroof, being as old as they are, and as poorly documented as they are, they really deserve the same fate as the BMW E30 M3 et al in Stock; put into a class where they can never really be a sustainable top dog

---

"Understeer is when you hit the wall with the front of the car and oversteer is when you hit the wall with the rear of the car.
Horsepower is how fast you hit the wall, torque is how far you take the wall with you." --Anonymous

marka:

But that "standard features" sheet also made me think of something else... :-)

On options like Chevy's 1LE, Dodge's ACR, Miata's hard S, Ford's Cobra R, etc. where its got a "delete", that means that whatever you're deleting is standard equipment, and if you choose the option package, they remove it, correct?

I can't speak for anything besides the 1LE, but A/C was optional on Camaros up until 1996. What adding "1LE" to your build list did was make it so that other options (like A/C) couldn't be chosen.

---

Karen Kraus
2005 SEDiv FS Champion
2007 DSL National Champion <shrug>

Mike Shields:

OK, if you were going to make a change to a different configuration of a car that is generally accepted to be configured only one way, don't you think it would be smart to come with the documentation to back it up? Or am I just talking crazy here?

-Mike

 

It is always a good idea to have information to head off an obvious protest.  But, the protester still has to prove his/her point with documentation.  

---

Marcus
ESP 89
FS 89 for this year
www.margravemotorsports.com

Sunroofs are listed as standard equipment on a 968, yet as you say a handful of them were sold without a sunroof in the US.  So I guess anything is possible, but proving it is difficult.  Wonder what would have happened if I had shown up in a non-sunroof car?  I don't think that would be an easy conversion.

---

Travis hill

1994 porsche 968 B-stock

ESP89:

Mike Shields:

OK, if you were going to make a change to a different configuration of a car that is generally accepted to be configured only one way, don't you think it would be smart to come with the documentation to back it up? Or am I just talking crazy here?

-Mike

 

It is always a good idea to have information to head off an obvious protest.  But, the protester still has to prove his/her point with documentation.  

 

No he doesnt.

 

I'll paste this again from the rulebook. Its not until AFTER the protestee provides documentation that the protestor might need to prove by means of his own documentation.

 

8.3.1 Burden of Proof

The entrant of a protested vehicle has the burden of proving that

the vehicle conforms to these rules by the required documentation

according to the class of the vehicle, and must present the required

documentation to the PC at the time that the protest is heard, or else

be disqualified.

If the required documentation does not include sufficient information

on a protested item or specification, the burden shifts to the

protestor to prove the equipment or specification illegal.

---

I live my life one cone at a time........

Ok, let me rephrase that.  If the FSM does not provide information, the protestor will have to provide some sort of reasonable doubt as to why he/she thinks the item is illegal.  Be it expert witness testimony or documentation of some sort otherwise it will be considered a bad faith protest or just thrown out due to lack of data.

You cannot protest the gizmo is the wrong part without some sort of backup.  You have to have a reason or you will be wasting your money.

---

Marcus
ESP 89
FS 89 for this year
www.margravemotorsports.com

I only have a few seconds to post. It has been a *few* years since I had my face in the engine bay of a 968, so I was wrong about the strut bar. What did run across the top (and was missing) looks like a cruise control cable. It also looks like a cosmetic panel that goes across the head (and over the missing cruise cable) was not there. Believe me, I truly love the 968s, and yours at a distance looked nice. But once I was asked to eyeball it, it looked like a few items were not right. As noted here, the options with Porsche can be *variable.* But, the air conditioning for a USA built car, was a standard item. Service manuals, parts catalogs, and new car books can help support info. So, don't make me drag out my FSM (I still have it), parts fiche/ETK, or new car books (though some have posted the relevant pages).

---

Matt Murray

I am perfectly capable of learning from my mistakes. I will surely learn a great deal today.

As an example, Porsche brings the 996 and 997 GT3 to USA with A/C as standard equipment. You can request the car without A/C (A/C Delete). The work is done at the factory and it is legal in Stock. The Window sticker for a GT3 configured this way will be enough proof.

A friend (very knowledgeable 968 owner) says there are three US 968 ordered with A/C Delete. It would be a matter of the protested driver to find a window sticker for a US 968 with the explicit A/C delete option.

On an interesting note, if this A/C Delete and Sunroof Delete thing is proven for a U.S car, somebody could build a class killer 968 M030 with another 100 lbs removed (A/C & Sunroof Delete) + LSD.

 

 

---

Rad

2003 Toyota Celica GT-S, 6-speed Manual
2004 911 GT3 with some upgrades (Sold)
2007 BMW 335i Sedan, 6-speed Manual
2008 BMW M3, 7-speed DCT

ESP89:

Ok, let me rephrase that.  If the FSM does not provide information, the protestor will have to provide some sort of reasonable doubt as to why he/she thinks the item is illegal.  Be it expert witness testimony or documentation of some sort otherwise it will be considered a bad faith protest or just thrown out due to lack of data.

You cannot protest the gizmo is the wrong part without some sort of backup.  You have to have a reason or you will be wasting your money.

This is absolutely true.  I did what I thought was extensive research, both on the internet and with the accepted solo 968 experts, and all roads pointed to no a/c delete was a standard option.  If they find some one off and can document it, then that will be great in that a precedent will be set.  I think if that is the case, we will start to see a lot more 968's start to reappear :)

 Either way, the research and documentation was enough to make this a reasonable protest.  I'm just glad everyone is realizing it was a protest against the car, not the driver.  Travis is obviously a good driver and deserves a chance to rectify all of this by winning Toledo :)

---

Jay Ruggles
#97 STS2 CRX "Lil Evil"

TractionCircle:

Travis is obviously a good driver and deserves a chance to rectify all of this by winning Toledo :)

+1 Travis is definitely a solid driver.

---

Chike Dellimore - Blue Ridge/Washington DC Regions
2006 Galaxy Gray 6MT Mazda RX-8 (B-stock)
Former 2006 Steel Gray 5spd WRX (D-stock)

"Between now and Nats, f!ck seat time - I'm working on crazy!!!"

Two quick procedural points regarding protests at Pro Solos.

1) Pro Solo does not necessarily have to follow the protest procedures in the rule book.  They have authority to basically do as they see fit.  And I've seen all kinds of craziness happen in that regard over the years.   In the end, the procedure is whatever Howard/Doug & Co. wants it to be.

2) Decisions made at Pro Solos do not set precedent in the same manner as Protest/Appeals do for Tours/Nats/Divs, since the latter go to the SEB while the former do not.  Of course, with the SEB backing away from being the National Appeals Commmittee even the latter case may no longer be viable.  But, I digress....

--Andy 

no disrespect intended, but IMO a top prepared and driven RX-8 would make this a moot issue anyway ....

---

"Understeer is when you hit the wall with the front of the car and oversteer is when you hit the wall with the rear of the car.
Horsepower is how fast you hit the wall, torque is how far you take the wall with you." --Anonymous

TeamRX8:

no disrespect intended, but IMO a top prepared and driven RX-8 would make this a moot issue anyway ....

 

So would: having a legal car or proof that it is legal, eliminating BS from the Solo classing, making the removal of A/C legal on any car... but that is not what happened in this instance. :-)

 

 

---

00' 328Ci
01' Tahoe LT
98' Camaro Z28 - dead
95' 325is - STX 182

i was called by the protest committee, about the car, I did say as far as I know the 1994 968 came with AC, but was not 100%  on a Ac delete, it could have been available, I was 100% on the Strut Tower Brace.  there was some concern about the lower control arms also. the committee said that the strut bar clarification was all they needed.  end of conversation.

 If the 968 does have a Ac delete option then I would love to have a copy of the doc. as I still have mine.

 thanks Rob Falkner.

 

mattm:

I only have a few seconds to post. It has been a *few* years since I had my face in the engine bay of a 968, so I was wrong about the strut bar. What did run across the top (and was missing) looks like a cruise control cable. It also looks like a cosmetic panel that goes across the head (and over the missing cruise cable) was not there. Believe me, I truly love the 968s, and yours at a distance looked nice. But once I was asked to eyeball it, it looked like a few items were not right. As noted here, the options with Porsche can be *variable.* But, the air conditioning for a USA built car, was a standard item. Service manuals, parts catalogs, and new car books can help support info. So, don't make me drag out my FSM (I still have it), parts fiche/ETK, or new car books (though some have posted the relevant pages).

 

An aftermarket strut bar is what made the markings on top of the engine and the cruise cable was there it runs under that metal shield.  The cosmetic panel you are thinking of was a 92-93 only part as listed in the parts catalog 94-95's dont even have the mounting studs on them. 

---

Travis hill

1994 porsche 968 B-stock

there are plenty of verifiable US-spec option listings from Porsche for the 968 including the full world option code listings which don't mention that item so it will take some serious verifiable counter-documentation to stand up against all those, IMO even having a window sticker with A/C delete on it won't cut the mustard based on my own past similar experiences like 8.5" wide rear wheels and camber bolts for the BMW E36 M3 etc.

  

Alternate parts listed in a factory parts manual are not authorized unless their use is specifically referenced in the factory service manual or in a service bulletin for the specific model.

my own research indicates an A/C delete kit hat can be purchased from Porsche and other sources, but it was never a valid US-spec option under the Section 13 allowances

---

"Understeer is when you hit the wall with the front of the car and oversteer is when you hit the wall with the rear of the car.
Horsepower is how fast you hit the wall, torque is how far you take the wall with you." --Anonymous

If I saw a Monroney sticker that said AC delete, under a heading of "Special Wishes" or build group, it would be a lot better. I do remember new car brouchures for the 911/Carerra that mention the sunroof delete. I don't remember a sunroof delete nor A/C delete on the 968.

Though highly unofficial this has a pretty good list of options. Notice there is an "emblem delete" option [498 Delete Model Designation-Rear].

http://www.cantonia.com/option_codes.html#944OptionCodes

I just looked at the two new car brochures for the 968 (I have no idea why I have two). The electric slliding an tilting sunroof and automatic air conditioning are standard features.

---

Matt Murray

I am perfectly capable of learning from my mistakes. I will surely learn a great deal today.