Ferrari GTO replicas
Discussion
I have seen the Datsun based replicas and they look quite good but its getting very hard to find a base car in the first place. There is also a Porsche based kit (944 i think) which i saw in kitcar magazine which no offence to the guy looks s
te.
Just had an idea, how about basing it on one of these:
http://www.factoryfive.com/coupehome.html
It looks the right sort of shape and because it is fibreglass to start with then presumuably it would be easier to chop it up to look right (as apposed to the monocoque of the porsche or datsun)
What do people think? Is there a man out there for the job?
te. Just had an idea, how about basing it on one of these:
http://www.factoryfive.com/coupehome.html
It looks the right sort of shape and because it is fibreglass to start with then presumuably it would be easier to chop it up to look right (as apposed to the monocoque of the porsche or datsun)
What do people think? Is there a man out there for the job?
Why would you want to take a copy of one car, and turn it into a copy of another?
The FFR is a much better copy of a Daytona Coupe than it would ever be of a 250GTO.
The 250GTO is real racehorse of a car. It's a lightweight thoroughbred, with a very special engine. Making one out of american or japanese iron would only ever be a pastiche, never a replica.
The FFR is a much better copy of a Daytona Coupe than it would ever be of a 250GTO.
The 250GTO is real racehorse of a car. It's a lightweight thoroughbred, with a very special engine. Making one out of american or japanese iron would only ever be a pastiche, never a replica.
Sorry Tom, you've made the most basic of mistakes - you've asked about creating a replica of a Ferrari. Everyone knows that despite the originals being as reliable as a Trabant in a lake, to consider replicating even an unattainable one is akin to giving the Pope a wedgie after sticking your arse-dipped finger under his nose.
If you want sensible, non-sycophantic responses try somewhere like a kit car forum (that isn't on PH).
If you did want to pursue it further, then modifying the chassis of the FF car would be considerably easier than sitting down to design one from scratch providing the basic dims are the same - and as you say it is the right shape! Problem is going to be the body shell... a chassis is a piece of piss 5 minute job compared to that - you either need (very) accurate drawings that can be put into CAD to get CNC cut, an original that the owner doesn't mind you taking moulds off, or a few spare years, a lot of foam, ply, filler and sandpaper!!!
If you want sensible, non-sycophantic responses try somewhere like a kit car forum (that isn't on PH).
If you did want to pursue it further, then modifying the chassis of the FF car would be considerably easier than sitting down to design one from scratch providing the basic dims are the same - and as you say it is the right shape! Problem is going to be the body shell... a chassis is a piece of piss 5 minute job compared to that - you either need (very) accurate drawings that can be put into CAD to get CNC cut, an original that the owner doesn't mind you taking moulds off, or a few spare years, a lot of foam, ply, filler and sandpaper!!!
Edited by Davi on Wednesday 30th July 09:46
I dont see anything wrong with copying rare classic cars, copying a GTO is no worse than a cobra (personally hate copies of modern ferraris) Anyway i dont want to debate wether or not it is right to copy that kind or car because there is at least 2 kits out there which people buy.
The reason i suggested building a kit car out of a kit car is that it is new and there is plenty where it came from so if there was demand for it you could keep knocking them out (unlike wasing a good Z car which is becomming increasingly rare)
The chap who built the porsche based copy, his panels look authentic enough to me and the finishing seems good but the problem is that the 944 is the wrong shape to start with so it is never going to look right. If that guy started off with a type 65 he would be able to make a much better copy. Also because that engine bay is designed to take a big block ford then you could put a v12 if if you really wanted.
The reason i suggested building a kit car out of a kit car is that it is new and there is plenty where it came from so if there was demand for it you could keep knocking them out (unlike wasing a good Z car which is becomming increasingly rare)
The chap who built the porsche based copy, his panels look authentic enough to me and the finishing seems good but the problem is that the 944 is the wrong shape to start with so it is never going to look right. If that guy started off with a type 65 he would be able to make a much better copy. Also because that engine bay is designed to take a big block ford then you could put a v12 if if you really wanted.
Davi said:
Sorry Tom, you've made the most basic of mistakes - you've asked about creating a replica of a Ferrari. Everyone knows that despite the originals being as reliable as a Trabant in a lake, to consider replicating even an unattainable one is akin to giving the Pope a wedgie after sticking your arse-dipped finger under his nose.
Correct - although I wasn't aware I was being in any way a sycophant.Just to make it clear; it isn't the Ferrari that's the problem, it's the use of the word replica when copy or fake is more accurate.
And who is this bloke Pope?
Paul Drawmer said:
Correct - although I wasn't aware I was being in any way a sycophant.
Just to make it clear; it isn't the Ferrari that's the problem, it's the use of the word replica when copy or fake is more accurate.
And who is this bloke Pope?
rep·li·ca (rĕp'lĭ-kə) pronunciationJust to make it clear; it isn't the Ferrari that's the problem, it's the use of the word replica when copy or fake is more accurate.
And who is this bloke Pope?
n.
1. A copy or reproduction of a work of art, especially one made by the original artist.
2. A copy or reproduction, especially one on a scale smaller than the original.
Your choice of words is just semantics to emphasise your displeasure, doesn't alter what it really is.
Furyblade_Lee said:
Unless the GTO replica has a V12 in the front then anone driving it would look like a dick. Why ruin a perfectly good 240 / 260 Z???????.
Harsh, but true. 
The engine is such an important part of any car. It would be as silly as a pinto-engined Cobra replica (of which there are a depressingly high number). Either is a little bit like those kids trying to pass their 55hp 1-litre Novas off as rally cars.
Davi said:
Paul Drawmer said:
Correct - although I wasn't aware I was being in any way a sycophant.
Just to make it clear; it isn't the Ferrari that's the problem, it's the use of the word replica when copy or fake is more accurate.
And who is this bloke Pope?
rep·li·ca (rĕp'lĭ-kə) pronunciationJust to make it clear; it isn't the Ferrari that's the problem, it's the use of the word replica when copy or fake is more accurate.
And who is this bloke Pope?
n.
1. A copy or reproduction of a work of art, especially one made by the original artist.
2. A copy or reproduction, especially one on a scale smaller than the original.
Your choice of words is just semantics to emphasise your displeasure, doesn't alter what it really is.
Replica - an exact copy of the original
Fake - not genuine; counterfeit
Paul Drawmer said:
Davi said:
Paul Drawmer said:
Correct - although I wasn't aware I was being in any way a sycophant.
Just to make it clear; it isn't the Ferrari that's the problem, it's the use of the word replica when copy or fake is more accurate.
And who is this bloke Pope?
rep·li·ca (rĕp'lĭ-kə) pronunciationJust to make it clear; it isn't the Ferrari that's the problem, it's the use of the word replica when copy or fake is more accurate.
And who is this bloke Pope?
n.
1. A copy or reproduction of a work of art, especially one made by the original artist.
2. A copy or reproduction, especially one on a scale smaller than the original.
Your choice of words is just semantics to emphasise your displeasure, doesn't alter what it really is.
Replica - an exact copy of the original
Fake - not genuine; counterfeit
I concede that you can't always get things spot on - not sure where you'd find another Columbo V12 for the 250 for example - but things like the wrong number of cylinders or (in the case of the 406-based Ferrari replicas) the engine in the wrong place is inexcusable.
Put it this way - I've just bought a new runaround and I spent a while pondering what colour I'd like it in. Then it occured to me that I couldn't actually see that from the inside anyway. I would, however, notice if someone changed the sports suspension for standard, the precise steering for something vague and over-assisted or the 4 cylinder engine for a tripple.
Paul Drawmer said:
Davi said:
Paul Drawmer said:
Correct - although I wasn't aware I was being in any way a sycophant.
Just to make it clear; it isn't the Ferrari that's the problem, it's the use of the word replica when copy or fake is more accurate.
And who is this bloke Pope?
rep·li·ca (rĕp'lĭ-kə) pronunciationJust to make it clear; it isn't the Ferrari that's the problem, it's the use of the word replica when copy or fake is more accurate.
And who is this bloke Pope?
n.
1. A copy or reproduction of a work of art, especially one made by the original artist.
2. A copy or reproduction, especially one on a scale smaller than the original.
Your choice of words is just semantics to emphasise your displeasure, doesn't alter what it really is.
Replica - an exact copy of the original
Fake - not genuine; counterfeit
Personally I'd rather see (and understand the logic of) someone putting their blood sweat and tears into a car they love than hand over large sums of cash for a s
t unreliable car for no other reason than it's got a prancing horse on the front, hey ho.The language we use is important. Calling anything that’s built to look like something else a replica, implies a quality of reproduction that often isn’t there.
My taste has nothing to do with it. I am not a particular fan of Ferrari, and the subject of the copy isn’t what irritates me. My point is; that if every copy is described as replica, then how do we differentiate between Chris Rea’s 156 Sharknose replica and the ‘thing’ posted earlier in this thread by Fresh Clip?
There are some wonderful replica cars about, and there are many more look-alike copies. I just wish that a more realistic description of the majority was used than the word replica.
I applaud anyone who decides to spend their time making something. I have no problem with someone making a Datsun look like a Ferrari, just don’t call it a replica.
My taste has nothing to do with it. I am not a particular fan of Ferrari, and the subject of the copy isn’t what irritates me. My point is; that if every copy is described as replica, then how do we differentiate between Chris Rea’s 156 Sharknose replica and the ‘thing’ posted earlier in this thread by Fresh Clip?
There are some wonderful replica cars about, and there are many more look-alike copies. I just wish that a more realistic description of the majority was used than the word replica.
I applaud anyone who decides to spend their time making something. I have no problem with someone making a Datsun look like a Ferrari, just don’t call it a replica.
Paul Drawmer said:
The language we use is important. Calling anything that’s built to look like something else a replica, implies a quality of reproduction that often isn’t there.
My taste has nothing to do with it. I am not a particular fan of Ferrari, and the subject of the copy isn’t what irritates me. My point is; that if every copy is described as replica, then how do we differentiate between Chris Rea’s 156 Sharknose replica and the ‘thing’ posted earlier in this thread by Fresh Clip?
There are some wonderful replica cars about, and there are many more look-alike copies. I just wish that a more realistic description of the majority was used than the word replica.
I applaud anyone who decides to spend their time making something. I have no problem with someone making a Datsun look like a Ferrari, just don’t call it a replica.
Fair enough, a perfectly reasonable POV - I didn't get that impression from your earlier posts so my apologies.My taste has nothing to do with it. I am not a particular fan of Ferrari, and the subject of the copy isn’t what irritates me. My point is; that if every copy is described as replica, then how do we differentiate between Chris Rea’s 156 Sharknose replica and the ‘thing’ posted earlier in this thread by Fresh Clip?
There are some wonderful replica cars about, and there are many more look-alike copies. I just wish that a more realistic description of the majority was used than the word replica.
I applaud anyone who decides to spend their time making something. I have no problem with someone making a Datsun look like a Ferrari, just don’t call it a replica.
I think the OP's question has some serious merit for working towards something much closer to a good replica - certainly a better replica than a 240 with added plastic (which I personally don't like as the 240 is rare enough and special enough on it's own!). These propositions have a habit of being shot down without thought here on PH which as you might have gathered annoys me quite intensely.
Unfortunately some cars should not be replicated in my opinion. Cobra's, OK as you can build a pretty accurate Cobra fairly easily (although why some people want to decorate them with more jewellery than a Chavvy 15 year old girl beats me, have they never seen a real Cobra???) maybe even better than the original bar the aluminium body (see Hawk for that, OUCH!). You can buy the engine off the shelf and get the exact same sound, visual impact and handling as the original. But has anyone ever stood at the Goodwood Revival trackside as a 250GTO has gone past with the V12 at nearly 9,000rpm? You cannot replicate that, and i stand by my "dick" comment!
Furyblade_Lee said:
But has anyone ever stood at the Goodwood Revival trackside as a 250GTO has gone past with the V12 at nearly 9,000rpm? You cannot replicate that, and i stand by my "dick" comment!
Yes, you can. Despite the emotive badge on the front, it is nothing more than various pieces of metal joined together to create a car. The engine is nothing special by todays standards, a variety of V12's are available, you could detune the performance on any of them to match the antiquated GTO's. With some attention to the exhaust could be made to replicate the sound to within such tolerances you would need electronic equipment to show irregularities. The frame was tubular steel, it's got wishbone front suspension, live axle rear end. No shortage of either available off the shelf if you didn't want to improve on that either. Disc brakes all round. The interior on the GTO was so basic I could probably knock it up in a little more than a week - I could even get the original switches if what I was told at Goodwood is true.
There is nothing, and I mean nothing that one man has made that another cannot replicate - which leaves the only remaining issue of Marque sycophancy - a trait almost exclusively reserved for Ferrari.
I really dont see anything wrong with copying classics just so long as they look right. I think as long as you had an authentic enough sounding engine such as a Jag V12 with quad carbs or even a straight six then it would be ok. After all it is such a rare car that 99% of people on the street dont know what it is anyway and of the other 1% only a real expert is going to be able to tell the difference and he will probably congratulate you on a good replica!
The other thing of course is that few GTO's looked the same anyway (so im told) so you dont have to be so accurate (just so long as it isnt st like the afformentioned porsche based copy/replica/fake) to say the least you wouldnt look a dick.
The only reason i suggested it in the first place was because it is a nice looking car not beacause it is a ferrari. Im a total car geek but not so strong on ferraris and before i did my research i wouldnt have been able to tell you what it was if you showed me a picture. I know everyone says this but if someone could copy the shape and make it look good (even if it wasnt 100% accurate) then i would be happy to drive it without the badges on. Hell stick a 150bhp Lotus twincam in there with a trick intake and that would do me for the right price.
The other thing of course is that few GTO's looked the same anyway (so im told) so you dont have to be so accurate (just so long as it isnt s
t like the afformentioned porsche based copy/replica/fake) to say the least you wouldnt look a dick. The only reason i suggested it in the first place was because it is a nice looking car not beacause it is a ferrari. Im a total car geek but not so strong on ferraris and before i did my research i wouldnt have been able to tell you what it was if you showed me a picture. I know everyone says this but if someone could copy the shape and make it look good (even if it wasnt 100% accurate) then i would be happy to drive it without the badges on. Hell stick a 150bhp Lotus twincam in there with a trick intake and that would do me for the right price.
Ignoring the replica / fake argument for one minute and going back to the original question:
Isn't the GTO tiny in comparison to a cobra coupe? The cutting and reshaping to both chassis and body would be significant and you'd be better off looking to another kit as a starting point.
I like the thinking behind it though - modify an existing kit rather than a production car. It makes a lot of sense.
Isn't the GTO tiny in comparison to a cobra coupe? The cutting and reshaping to both chassis and body would be significant and you'd be better off looking to another kit as a starting point.
I like the thinking behind it though - modify an existing kit rather than a production car. It makes a lot of sense.
Gassing Station | Kit Cars | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff