Why are folk so snobby about "kit cars"?
Discussion
Never understood the logic of spending loads of money building a replica Healy, Porsche or Ferrari. To get them to a presentable standard, well trimmed and painted isn't cheap and for that money, you could have the real deal... Eg
Why have this :- http://www.pistonheads.com/classifieds/used-cars/k...
When for a very little more you could have this:- http://www.carandclassic.co.uk/car/C527290
Any savings in running costs from the MR2 based replica would be offset by depreciation. That kit-car Ferrari looks beautifully done but no matter how many Ferrari badges you put on it, it'll always be an MR2 based replica.
Just an opinion and nothing to do with snobbery....
Why have this :- http://www.pistonheads.com/classifieds/used-cars/k...
When for a very little more you could have this:- http://www.carandclassic.co.uk/car/C527290
Any savings in running costs from the MR2 based replica would be offset by depreciation. That kit-car Ferrari looks beautifully done but no matter how many Ferrari badges you put on it, it'll always be an MR2 based replica.
Just an opinion and nothing to do with snobbery....
Those saying that classic Elans and Europas were sold as kits aren't really comparing to a modern kitcar - the Lotuses were fully finished, painted and trimmed cars but with the powertrain, wheels, exhaust, seats and front uprights taken off - you could build one in a day quite easily.
People look down on kitcars because 90%+ are pretty poorly engineered and styled even before the builder gets to them.
People look down on kitcars because 90%+ are pretty poorly engineered and styled even before the builder gets to them.
So where does something like this fit in?
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
It is not a kit. The monocoque is as per a 1966 one, with the exception of being zinc plated, and a very high percentage of the parts used are identical to those used on an original. I know some purists will poo-poo it, but I could never afford to buy an original... so I figure this is the next best thing. I will never claim it is an original GT40, but am I wrong to call it a Ford when it is finished?
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
It is not a kit. The monocoque is as per a 1966 one, with the exception of being zinc plated, and a very high percentage of the parts used are identical to those used on an original. I know some purists will poo-poo it, but I could never afford to buy an original... so I figure this is the next best thing. I will never claim it is an original GT40, but am I wrong to call it a Ford when it is finished?
The Surveyor said:
Never understood the logic of spending loads of money building a replica Healy, Porsche or Ferrari. To get them to a presentable standard, well trimmed and painted isn't cheap and for that money, you could have the real deal... Eg
Why have this :- http://www.pistonheads.com/classifieds/used-cars/k...
When for a very little more you could have this:- http://www.carandclassic.co.uk/car/C527290
Any savings in running costs from the MR2 based replica would be offset by depreciation. That kit-car Ferrari looks beautifully done but no matter how many Ferrari badges you put on it, it'll always be an MR2 based replica.
Just an opinion and nothing to do with snobbery....
Not that a Mondial has any more credibility than an MR2 based replica.Why have this :- http://www.pistonheads.com/classifieds/used-cars/k...
When for a very little more you could have this:- http://www.carandclassic.co.uk/car/C527290
Any savings in running costs from the MR2 based replica would be offset by depreciation. That kit-car Ferrari looks beautifully done but no matter how many Ferrari badges you put on it, it'll always be an MR2 based replica.
Just an opinion and nothing to do with snobbery....
Jukebag said:
Why do people insist on putting a high powered engine in something like a classic Healey?, they were made for the quiet country roads not for racing round a mountain side at 140mph.
the bigger engines are for better acceleration and the V8 noise, if you think they do 140mph round a mountain side then I've got a Nigerian General who'd like to meet youand the big Healeys were originally built to do things like race round mountains just because the old farts that can afford to own them now mostly only bimble to the local village show in summer don't get the wrong idea of the car - I do take your point about them on open country roads
Jukebag said:
Yes snobbery it is indeed to an extent. So many look down at people with kit cars/replica or even lookalikes for that matter as being owned by people who simply are too poor to afford a real one - which is true for the majority of people. However, I think most of it boils down to sheer enjoyment of building your own kit, spending many hours in a cold garage in the middle of winter grafting on a car which one day you want to see the end result of; simple fact that people don't want to get their hands dirty building one from scratch, they want the easy life and one ready made.
What about the Cobra, aren't they kits too? because how many can afford a real one?. Yes, I agree there are some poorly made examples out there that claim to resemble the original in every respect, but, like people say, they're usually built by amateurs who don't know what they're doing. There are replicas of classics built by reputable companies that should never have been made that way, one example are the Sebring and HMC Austin Healey replicas with those ridiculous flared wheel arches and the sporty side vents and unnecessary V8 engines in them and roll bars. Why do people insist on putting a high powered engine in something like a classic Healey?, they were made for the quiet country roads not for racing round a mountain side at 140mph. Since when did the Healey 100/3000 have flared wheel arches?:
And what about that Eagle Speedster with its 500k price tag?, how's that an original E-Type with the low screen and wider back? it is essentially a kit otnote]Edited by Jukebag on Monday 11th August 19:32[/footnote]
As someone who owns a Healey 3000, I hate to say it, but I don't take exception to replicas at all. Imitation is the greatest form of flattery as they say. As for being built for quiet country roads and not for hooning around the mountains, I beg to differ. They were designed as sports cars to be driven hard. Mine gets driven to within an inch of its life on an almost daily basis and seems to thrive on it! As long as you maintain them well they will take anything you throw at them. They weren't one of the most successful rally cars produced by BMC for nothing!What about the Cobra, aren't they kits too? because how many can afford a real one?. Yes, I agree there are some poorly made examples out there that claim to resemble the original in every respect, but, like people say, they're usually built by amateurs who don't know what they're doing. There are replicas of classics built by reputable companies that should never have been made that way, one example are the Sebring and HMC Austin Healey replicas with those ridiculous flared wheel arches and the sporty side vents and unnecessary V8 engines in them and roll bars. Why do people insist on putting a high powered engine in something like a classic Healey?, they were made for the quiet country roads not for racing round a mountain side at 140mph. Since when did the Healey 100/3000 have flared wheel arches?:
And what about that Eagle Speedster with its 500k price tag?, how's that an original E-Type with the low screen and wider back? it is essentially a kit otnote]Edited by Jukebag on Monday 11th August 19:32[/footnote]
Hadn't really intended to start an argument over replicas (tho' I should have known better). Was just making a casual observation whilst waiting for the rain to stop! The amount of times I've noticed a reaction to a car on here that could be summed up as "ugh, so it's just a kit car" as if that is an inherently bad thing... yes, some are badly styled, some are badly built but the same comments can be applied to Ferrari or Alfa Romeo if wanted, or especially to the likes of Zagato.
The Ronart, in the "spotted" thread, is an obvious example of a modern(ish) kit styled with cues from the 1950s racing cars, the fact it doesn't look like a Vanwall is neither here nor there in my opinion (regardless of whether the owner wishes to put Vanwall or Kia badges on it!). A more valid question is does it produce a desirable vehicle with classic influences? My answer would be "yes", others will have a different opinion but surely that should be based upon the vehicle not prejudice that it was built from a kit.
Right, I'm off to play with my Jaguar powered Austin...
*
The Ronart, in the "spotted" thread, is an obvious example of a modern(ish) kit styled with cues from the 1950s racing cars, the fact it doesn't look like a Vanwall is neither here nor there in my opinion (regardless of whether the owner wishes to put Vanwall or Kia badges on it!). A more valid question is does it produce a desirable vehicle with classic influences? My answer would be "yes", others will have a different opinion but surely that should be based upon the vehicle not prejudice that it was built from a kit.
Right, I'm off to play with my Jaguar powered Austin...
*- "Grrr, hot rodders cutting up nice old cars and building them differently to the way they "should" be..."
mph said:
nta16 said:
Roy C said:
Some of the better C & D-Type replicas now change hands for serious money.
a perfect example of snobberySome of the D and C type recreations are owned by people who also own originals with £3m or more.
This is clearly not the same as putting Ferrari badges on an MR2.
Russwhitehouse said:
As someone who owns a Healey 3000, I hate to say it, but I don't take exception to replicas at all. Imitation is the greatest form of flattery as they say. As for being built for quiet country roads and not for hooning around the mountains, I beg to differ. They were designed as sports cars to be driven hard. Mine gets driven to within an inch of its life on an almost daily basis and seems to thrive on it! As long as you maintain them well they will take anything you throw at them. They weren't one of the most successful rally cars produced by BMC for nothing!
I take your point. I guess most people have the image of the Healey as being the quintessential middle class gentelman's sportscar driven by a chap in a flat chap with his finance at his side wearing the pearls and headscarf, then going for a leisurely ride in the country on a Sunday afternoon. That's the Healey I prefer rather than the racing/rallying one. So I guess there's a market for those wanting the racing look.mph said:
Why is it snobbery to pay more for the better and rarer cars ? Seems quite logical to me.
it's snobbery to value based on the model (copied)snobbery is what gives high prices to even what some would consider low priced car - the badges are need to fulfil the snobery - do you remember "my car's an 'i'"
The Crack Fox said:
Every time I think I ought to give kit cars another look I find so many are shonkily build deathtraps lashed together on a shoe-string by under skilled and over enthusiastic blokes in their garage. Some of the factory built kits aren't much better. I'm quite sure there are some lovely replicas and well-engineered kit cars out there but they (and the kit car image as a whole) are overshadowed by the very many bodge-jobs. Just my 2p.
sounds much like most British classics and their ownersnta16 said:
t's snobbery to value based on the model (copied)
snobbery is what gives high prices to even what some would consider low priced car - the badges are need to fulfil the snobery - do you remember "my car's an 'i'"
I don't consider myself a snob. I enjoy all classics from A35's to works D types.snobbery is what gives high prices to even what some would consider low priced car - the badges are need to fulfil the snobery - do you remember "my car's an 'i'"
Yet I'd happily pay more for a well-made faithful aluminium replica of a Jaguar C type than I would for a Cortina-engined fibreglass "fun car" C type replica. Who wouldn't ?
So that's nothing to do with the model is it ? It's to do with the quality.
nta16 said:
mph said:
Why is it snobbery to pay more for the better and rarer cars ? Seems quite logical to me.
it's snobbery to value based on the model (copied)snobbery is what gives high prices to even what some would consider low priced car - the badges are need to fulfil the snobery - do you remember "my car's an 'i'"
spoodler said:
Hadn't really intended to start an argument over replicas (tho' I should have known better). Was just making a casual observation whilst waiting for the rain to stop! The amount of times I've noticed a reaction to a car on here that could be summed up as "ugh, so it's just a kit car" as if that is an inherently bad thing... yes, some are badly styled, some are badly built but the same comments can be applied to Ferrari or Alfa Romeo if wanted, or especially to the likes of Zagato.
The Ronart, in the "spotted" thread, is an obvious example of a modern(ish) kit styled with cues from the 1950s racing cars, the fact it doesn't look like a Vanwall is neither here nor there in my opinion (regardless of whether the owner wishes to put Vanwall or Kia badges on it!). A more valid question is does it produce a desirable vehicle with classic influences? My answer would be "yes", others will have a different opinion but surely that should be based upon the vehicle not prejudice that it was built from a kit.
Right, I'm off to play with my Jaguar powered Austin...*
Indeed! A very nice client of mine has a Ronart, and revels in hounding it through the countryside - why wouldn't you?! He also has various E types including a factory experimental prototype - no snobbery there!!The Ronart, in the "spotted" thread, is an obvious example of a modern(ish) kit styled with cues from the 1950s racing cars, the fact it doesn't look like a Vanwall is neither here nor there in my opinion (regardless of whether the owner wishes to put Vanwall or Kia badges on it!). A more valid question is does it produce a desirable vehicle with classic influences? My answer would be "yes", others will have a different opinion but surely that should be based upon the vehicle not prejudice that it was built from a kit.
Right, I'm off to play with my Jaguar powered Austin...
*- "Grrr, hot rodders cutting up nice old cars and building them differently to the way they "should" be..."
yes I understand they cost and are worth more but it's the increased value that follows the initial sale
an element of very high prices is often snobbery
someone who buys a 2.0 Cortina engined kit instead of the multi-tens of thousands of pounds 'replicas' probably does so because he can't afford the later yet you look down your nose at his car
yes I wish I could afford to but these C or D types but I'd only buy them to make a good profit to buy a fleet of classics I'd prefer
you're wasting your time with me I owned three Skodas in the mid to late 1980s when the Sun reading sheep were encouraged to take the piss out of them
an element of very high prices is often snobbery
someone who buys a 2.0 Cortina engined kit instead of the multi-tens of thousands of pounds 'replicas' probably does so because he can't afford the later yet you look down your nose at his car
yes I wish I could afford to but these C or D types but I'd only buy them to make a good profit to buy a fleet of classics I'd prefer
you're wasting your time with me I owned three Skodas in the mid to late 1980s when the Sun reading sheep were encouraged to take the piss out of them
Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff