Talk:Porsche 356/Archive 1

December 2002
Ferdinand Porsche was not the designer of the Porsche 356.

ERWIN Komenda was from 1931 to 1966 leader of the Porsche car body construction department. Komenda developed the car design of the VW-beetle, the Porsche 356 and 550. Due to his early death in 12966 his last work for the Porsche company was the development of the Porsche typ 911. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.47.145.83 (talk) 08:21, 8 December 2002 (UTC)


 * This comment is a little narrow-minded, in my opinion. "Designer" if not clarified might as easily refer to the person designing the body, or the chassis, or both, or even the person overseeing the project. Which does the writer mean? I'm not sure his usage agrees with most people's. In fact Ferry Porsche did direct the design of the 356 in the accepted sense, with Komenda designing the form of the body. And "Butzi" Porsche (Ferry Porsche's son) was the sole author of the body design of the 911-- Komenda's design was not favored by the company and was not implemented. This is easily verified in most histories of the marque. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.77.102 (talk) 02:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Replica?
How does one determine that the car I put the picture up of is a replica Speedster rather than an original?

I suspect it's also worth clarifying that if it's not a genuine Speedster, it IS probably built from a real 356 of another model. &mdash;Morven 07:55, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)


 * That's not neccesarily true. Most of the companies building 356, 356 B, 356 C and 356 Speedster replicas use VW Beetle and Super Beetle frames. Although the Beetle and 356 were very closely related, that doesn't make them the same car. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.36.17.218 (talk) 04:25, 28 December 2004 (UTC)


 * Hello


 * a 356 Replica is as genuine:


 * - as the Mona Lisa paintet on a Billboard.
 * Don´t ask me why so many people move to the louvre ;)
 * I guess they are sensible and see a difference


 * So move over to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mona_lisa and look if they show the Duchamp "replica" and tell thats the original ;)


 * - as genuine as US brewery is to german beer


 * BTW I doubt someone uses a Superbeetle ( 1302/1303 ) pan for a replica.
 * There McPherson frontaxle design needs a unibody structure.
 * But the basical Superbeetle axle layout was designed by Porsche in 1959 in a beetle sucessor prototype. VW just needed some 10 years to refine it to there level ;)
 * The IRS came with the 1965 Automatic beetle chassis — Preceding unsigned comment added by IXXI~enwiki (talk • contribs) 07:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The Beetle is related closely enough to the 356 on so many levels that, in my opinion, using a Beetle as basis for a 356 replica is not unreasonable. In terms of engineering and overall quality, even the Beetle has now been developed enough (by the factory and especially by the aftermarket) that a rebuilt example can easily surpass the 1950's-engineered 356 in terms of quality-- in particular considering the hand-built nature of most replicas, as well as the aging of original 356s. Engine, suspension and brakes are three areas that come to mind in which replicas can be spectacularly better. As for body and interior, the only practical differences (other than body-on-pan rather than unibody construction) are that replica bodies are fiberglass, a venerable material that is used in many exotic and super cars, which is easy to repair-- and which does not rust.


 * To the point of the original question: replica vs. original 356 CANNOT be determined by a photo of the exterior of the car at the angle and resolution shown-- so a photo of either would be appropriate.


 * It would be interesting to debate the intrinsic worth of the 356 replicas intelligently. Because of the common heritage and close similarities between them, in fact most observers cannot distinguish replicas from originals. Purists tend to have difficulty seeing (or admitting) value in replicas, insisting that the Porsche gestalt cannot be replicated, and presuming that anything that did not originate at the Porsche factory cannot possibly be a well-engineered, worthy sports car. Such elitists miss the point that replica owners usually do not intend to counterfeit or compete with the originals, and instead tend to build and drive their cars for completely different reasons. Do such snobs feel in some way threatened by those who they perceive have obtained 95% of the fun of driving such cars at perhaps 20% of the cost (and far less worry)? Do they feel reproached by the mechanical acumen of those who have successfully built their own desirable vehicles, rather than merely written checks? Or are they not so sure that what they have is so much better? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.77.102 (talk) 02:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It would be worth mentioning that in the world of replica/kit cars, replicas of the 356 are popular, and are usually built on VW Beetle chassis. Maybe show an example? --Ragemanchoo82 (talk) 02:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

LCReplacements
Hello

The sentence:

"Porsche replaced the 356 with their then-new 911 model in 1963, although they continued to sell 356s in North America through the end of 1965 as a lower-cost vehicle. The 356's engine was later re-used to power Porsche's "entry level" 912 model between 1965 and 1969."

isn´t dead on.

The 911 replaced the 356 Carrera ( Thats the version with DOHC engine ). The 356 with the OHV pushrod engines where replaced by the 912. Both replacments where close in pricelevel and performance.

When Porsche announced the new 911 at the Frankfurt Fair in 1963, many costumers rushed to order there last 356 ( Well that phenomen is typical Porsche and happens every time a "beloved" type/chassis runs out of production, that behavoir later saved the 911 some 15 years from getting offline ;) ).

When the 911 showed up many "die hard Porsche nuts" ( aka as "Gusseiserne" in german ) didn´t liked the idear of a large ( fat ) car wich is more expensive to service. So the last 356 years where booked out as the previous years.

This might not be true for the US marked wich had more dealer stock orders then ordering buyers.

Porsche even made 356 Convertibles up to late 1966 to fill the gap to the new Targas.

Btw the first 911´s hit the road in the mid 1964 months yet most 1964 built cars where MY 1965. After the first 911 had some little problems ( i.e. 6 single carburators !!! mostly out of tune ) preorders where partly changed to "pushrods" in 356 and 912 ( so on 1 911 Porsche sold 3 912 )

An other thing is that the K64 isn´t a "Porsche" as Porsche wasn´t a registret Car Manufactorer in germany they only could built prototypes under the name Porsche. The background was that the RDA ( "Reichsverband der Automobilindustrie" third Reich organisation ) was driven by the major companys ( Ford, GM/Opel, Daimler-Benz ) made the rules.

So Ferdinand Porsche Jr used the less restrictiv laws from the location Austria to become a car manufactorer ( And his Sister Luise used the austrian law to finance it ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by IXXI~enwiki (talk • contribs) 07:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The writer of this poorly-organized contribution, though he writes with some passion and grasps several disconnected factoids well, nevertheless profoundly misunderstands the company's automotive lineage. Almost all expert histories agree that the 911 was, definitively, THE successor to the 356. Details of the two model lines, whether they overlapped briefly and how they were sold, while interesting trivia, are not really relevant to the larger picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.77.102 (talk) 02:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

September 2007
Can someone sort out the links? The Porshe 356 Carrera is highlighted in the text, indicating a web link (and possibly a more detailed, standalone wikipedia entry), click on it, and it just takes you back to the top of the page.

Would those who add pictures to the Gallery section please try to add typical examples? The ones present at this writing (20 February 2007) are of highly-modified versions which are not, of themselves or without annotation, good examples.

Would those who edit this article "for clarity" kindly keep a few basics in mind

Do you clearly understand the main idea of the paragraph? Several edits, apparently for brevity's sake, have destroyed the original organisation of information. You cannot edit for grammar and syntax without paying attention to content. Unless you are willing to re-organise and write the entire article, please respect the intent of those who have come before you. Sometimes a few extra words really do matter. It's okay to leave them in.

Run-on sentences are not good English, and rarely clarify the meaning of passages or paragraphs. If you cannot write a sentence with clear subclauses, you are not qualified to edit others' work! Sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.77.102 (talk) 02:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)