The most on-topic off topic ever

[John Cody Forbes]

Actually yeah, it does have the N in the right (11th) spot, good call! The 
truth of the rule is that one could protest a late model 944 and they should 
be DQ'd. There is talk of repealing the rule and one of my goals is to push 
that talk into action with this idea so we can run more Chevy LT1 V8 944's 
(our current one is grandfathered from before that rule existed), but I want 
to see it through anyways because it would be a hoot to drive ;-).

-Cody Forbes

cobram at juno.com wrote:
> Does the Vin have an "N" in it for Neckarsulm?  If it does, the
> closest Porsche factory is 50km away in Zuffenhausen, proof enough of
> where it was assembled.  The history of these cars is pretty well
> known, the only thing that might sink your plans is if someone comes
> back and says the cars were assembled by Audi from Porsche parts,
> then you're in a very grey area.  The way it's worded, if an engine
> was outsourced,  the factory configuration of such a car would make
> the bone stock model illegal.  Not the case with the 944, but could
> set up a bit of a conundrum.
>
> BCNU,
> http://www.geocities.com/cobramsri/
> "God's a kid with an ant farm. He's not planning anything."
>
>>> I'm on a quest for as much hard documentation as I can find that
>>> proves beyond a doubt that the Porsche 944 was manufactured by
>> Audi
>>> at the Neckarsulm facility.
>>>
>>> I'm wanting to be true to the word about a rule for a racing
>> series
>>> that states "All ... cars must use an engine originally built by
>> the
>>> manufacturer of the car's chassis...". Obviously by working to
>> the
>>> letter of that rule I may install an Audi 5 cylinder in my 944 and
>>> be legal, but for ovious reasons this is going to be met with
>>> resistance. The "VW - OOOO" (where the OOOO is four rings) stamped
>>> into the steel of the chassis should be proof enough, but I want to
>>> be properly armed.