63 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHWhat a steal (craigslist ad)
Leading reported evidence
Replace looks like everything
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Reported fixes
0
Unsuccessful attempts
1
Discussions
Read evidence and context
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that performed work without a confirmed outcome
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Leading evidence: 'Replace looks like everything' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, The most frequently discussed action is 'Replace avatar' (1 discussions). For that action, 0 discussions report a resolution and 0 report an unsuccessful attempt. No action has an explicit, attributable resolution report under the current rules. These are forum reports and suggestions, not a confirmed diagnosis.
Source reports, not a diagnosis or a success probability. Counts refer to discussions and can overlap.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
You'll have to change your avatar to that pic next October
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
then replaced the pumpkins with clear side markers????
Counts describe captured discussions, not unique people or a diagnosis. Author identities are not reliably stored. Exact duplicate evidence is counted once across matching discussions; one discussion counts at most once per action/state. Multiple repairs reported together remain a combination. Suggestions and failed attempts do not establish a fix. Matches cover whole discussions and can include related faults, model variants and incomplete threads.
63 eligible posts · 0 unverified posts · 1 discussions match the subject in their title or opening post.
Rennlist: 1 discussions
0 evidence records excluded for query context · 0 excluded by outcome qualification · 0 adjusted by outcome qualification.
1 acknowledgements have no verified action link; they do not establish a repair result.
Outcome without a verified action link
He probably bought a wreck, fixed it all with aftermarket bumpers, new headlights, hood and wheels.
The 1999 911 4S is a very unique car, especially since Porsche didn't produce a 996 C4S until 2002! I would love to see a photo of it! I thought it was over priced until I saw that it comes with new license plate brackets.
Where are the pics? I love seeing people trying to sell things at a premium but fail really bad at creating a great ad to go along with the price premium.
Pet Peeve: You did not "invest" money into your car if you are selling it for less than what you have into it. He should have said
"Looks brand new, runs great, beautiful car... I have pissed away $74,300 on this vehicle to date."
Ok, if you remove the GT3 RS (
) sticker, put the factory bumpers on, remove the spoiler, and paint the hood in the same orange color the car would actually look very good.
He seems to have put a lot of time in the interior and based on the photos it does look good inside. I dig the black/orange theme look.
Price, well that is just...can't fix that. He is $30k too high.
Sadly, maybe he really did spend $74k to build this halloweenie-mobile. For those that despise pumpkin side markers, I wonder what they think when it's the whole car!
P.S.: A very nice touch to add "Porsche" to the side rear window, otherwise no one would know what it is.
.
lol this thread is getting pretty crazy. Lol don't hate to much on the front bumper because I am going to a GT3 997 front but it doesn't look much like that.
So, it may be a 4S after all, according to the seller...
me (after receiving pics):
Thanks. That doesnt look like a 4S. 4S had different headlights, wider rear like the TT, awd.
seller:
The front and rear bumpers are new with the gt3 conversion. The headlights are new to fit the body. I can scan a copy of the registration if you would like to see it.
me:
Is the car a 1999, as you listed? The 4S was not available until 2002.
Is your car AWD? Does it have the wider rear fenders like the 996 turbo?
Awaiting reply...
Yes, I agree. It is definitely not my 'cup o tea' but it looks good for people who like that type of style. What bothers me more is his misrepresentation of the car as a 4S and/or GT3RS. And, of course the asking price is CRAZY!!!
Totally agree. It's actually a pretty good looking restoration. Price is crazyballz stupid and the 4S designation and the GT3RS sticker are retarded, but if the seller wasn't being an idiot on those types of things then it wouldn't be so bad.
His reply...
Man, I'm so sorry, you are 100% correct. I looked at the registration myself just now and it is a 996 Carrera 4 3.4L I will make the correction in the listing ..
So, he puts $74K into a car and doesn't even know the very basics of what it is???
I don't like the color scheme at all. Fine for a ricer, though. I'd be embarrassed to drive it.
I love when there is an information thread is dies after a few posts here, put up a thread bashing a ricer 996 and it goes 4 pages in no time!
IDK about 74K but he does have SOME money in it. Maybe not all the right places though.
My biggest issue with the car is that 997 front bumper, too many damn lights on the front of the car. Ereven, I hope you plan to just paint the bumper lights or something on your car.
My guess is because it was in an accident and he bought it salvage. He probably bought a wreck, fixed it all with aftermarket bumpers, new headlights, hood and wheels. Put a little extra in and charges $47k. Bing bang boom, $30k profit
I'm gonna feel sorry for the non-member newbie sucker that buys this thinking he got a bargain on a GT3RS and joins these forums to brag about his car to find out the reality.:devil:
When I was shopping for my car I had found a 2004 black on black with about 45K miles on it at a local dealer. It was a nice looking car with the aero kit, TechArt wheels, H&R suspension, etc., on the add they claimed it's an GT3 and their asking price was 39K. So im thinking wow that's sweet deal even if turns out to be a salvage title. I drive down to the dealer which is like 5 miles away and start talking with the sales rep. He starts telling me what nice and fast car it is, as he is talking I turn around and tell him dude its not a GT3 and I havn't even seen engine. He turns around feeling all insulted and tells me yes it is. Then Im like a GT3 doesn't have a sun roof or back seat to begin with and I still havn't seen the engine. He thinks for a second and he tells me the PO was his friend and he had special ordered this car to have sun roof and back seats. I walked out with a good laugh and left them my number and told them if they would want to let it go 30K out the door then I might come back and have ppi done. Never heard back from them
Just a funny story wanted to share.
You do have to feel sorry the person who buys it, or even travels to look at it. Its a shame there so may A** Holes in the world. But then again if you don't do your home work, buyer beware etc.
I had a friend who was really into 1960s Oldsmobile 442s. He was an expert. He would routinely go to auto auctions where cars that were supposedly 442s were offered for big money, and they were really re-badged Cutlass Supremes. This kind of stuff happens all the time to buyers who don't do their homework.
