Replicas?

[v8will]

So what cars are acceptable as a replica or not and would you spend say 20K on a replica car instead of a 2nd hand 911 or M3

Caterham and Westfield have been at it for years as have Dax and Pilgrim with their Cobra replicas. I wouldn't mind a Gardner Douglas of some sort TBH

What does the PH community view as being OK to drive?, I'm thinking a MR2 based Ferrari isn't on the list

[Harry Flashman]

Hawk Cobra 289. Yum.

And I like those Eleanor Shelby Mustang replicas (based on real classic Mustangs)...

[Fittster]

I'd be proud with a westfield 11.

[kambites]

Who cares what's "acceptable". Buy something you like.

[B.J.W]

Friend of mine built and ran a Chesil 356 Speedster for a few years. Lovely car

[Cock Womble 7]

At the risk of attracting the comment "But you would say that, wouldn't you?", the Caterham is not a replica; it was a continuation.

The Westfield, on the other hand - blatant rip-off

[MX7]

It's a difficult one to answer. I have no doubt that Caterham drivers turn their noses up at my Westfield, but possibly original Lotus 7 drivers turn their noses up at a Caterham.

I think the real opposition is directed towards those who take a normal, mass production car, and try to make it into something far superior by sticking on some fiberglass panels. I know that there was a 'replica' DB4 in here a while back, but it was built from scratch, and looked absolutely stunning. I would have been exceptionally happy to be the owner of that.

[marshalla]

Cock Womble 7 said:

At the risk of attracting the comment "But you would say that, wouldn't you?", the Caterham is not a replica; it was a continuation.

The Westfield, on the other hand - blatant rip-off

Only up to the lawsuit - after that it's just different enough...;)

[shirt]

I quite fancy a hawk ac ace with a BMW straight 6.

in my opinion its the intent and execution. an mr2 is never going to handle or go like an f355/360 so what's the point? something like the ace or 356 speedster can at least be made with the correct chassis dimensions, suspension arrangement, brakes etc.

then you have tool room replicas. who here would turn their nose up at a bugatti or blower bentley made from scratch using the original engineering drawings?

I'd like to see replicar companies think outside the box, start taking some early pininfarina or ghia concepts and make them a reality. not being constrained by running gear arrangements you'd think they'd have had a crack by now.

[jas xjr]

jaguar c type?

Edited by jas xjr on Thursday 24th June 17:10

[Ferg]

I don't see the difference between an MR2 based Ferrari and a Cobra clone WITHOUT a Ford engine. (Unless it has an Esprit engine of course).

[MX7]

It wasn't a DB3 I was thinking of, it was a DBR2.



I can't find the build thread that was on PH, but when you say 'replica', how do you differentiate between a MR2/Ferrari and something like this?

[jamieboy]

v8will said:

So what cars are acceptable as a replica

None.

[RobM77]

v8will said:

So what cars are acceptable as a replica or not and would you spend say 20K on a replica car instead of a 2nd hand 911 or M3

Caterham and Westfield have been at it for years as have Dax and Pilgrim with their Cobra replicas. I wouldn't mind a Gardner Douglas of some sort TBH

What does the PH community view as being OK to drive?, I'm thinking a MR2 based Ferrari isn't on the list

Firstly, a Caterham is not a replica. Caterham sold Lotus 7s and simply bought the rights from Lotus to continue production.

This issue is a very personal one. For me, I wouldn't be interested in what's traditionally known as a replica because I'm primarily interested in how a car drives. An MR2 turned into a Ferrari doesn't interest me because it'll drive the same as an MR2, so why not just buy an MR2? That's just my opinion. I have a slightly different opinion towards recreations of extremely rare or valuable cars - there are some GT40s (and 917s I think) being made with an extremely high level of detail. It still wouldn't really interest me though I have to admit.

The only time I'm interested in something other than the driving is if a car has history, and a replica of course has no history. Ergo, I'm not a fan really.

[DrYazz]

v8will said:

What does the PH community view as being OK to drive?, I'm thinking a MR2 based Ferrari isn't on the list

Too fekin' damn right! stty MR2 based 'Ferraris' are an abhomination. I am all for freedom of speech and recognition. Build what you want, from what you want. But then don't stick a fekin Ferrari badge on it. Leave the fekin Toyota badge on, you tw@ts.

[darth_pies]

MX7 said:

It's a difficult one to answer. I have no doubt that Caterham drivers turn their noses up at my Westfield, but possibly original Lotus 7 drivers turn their noses up at a Caterham.

I think the real opposition is directed towards those who take a normal, mass production car, and try to make it into something far superior by sticking on some fiberglass panels. I know that there was a 'replica' DB4 in here a while back, but it was built from scratch, and looked absolutely stunning. I would have been exceptionally happy to be the owner of that.

Some Lotus 7 drivers do turn their noses up. But the question was which replicas are acceptable.

Since Caterham were already the exclusive Lotus 7 dealer at the time, and bought the rights to the car from Lotus, plus all the jigs and tooling, that doesn't really count as a replica does it!?!?

Or is a Porsche a replica VW Beetle with 60 years of additional development???

W**tfields on the other hand are straightforward replicas 'Lotus 7 inspired cars'

ETA: forgot to answer the question. In my book replicas are fine if its a no longer in production, out of realistic reach for the common man (GT40, 250GT California etc.), properly tries to recreate the feel of the original rather than being a purely cosmetic exercise (looking at you MR2-based F355's) and the owner doesn't try and pass it off as a genuine car.

Edited by darth_pies on Thursday 24th June 17:53

[Sam_68]

Cock Womble 7 said:

...the Caterham is not a replica; it was a continuation.

It was a re-introduction of a discontinued and superseded design, as a matter of fact.

[Sam_68]

darth_pies said:

Caterham were already the exclusive Lotus 7 dealer at the time, and bought the rights to the Series 4 (a completely different design, for those who don't know their Sevens) from Lotus, plus all the jigs and tooling...

W**tfields on the other hand were straightforward visual replicas...

EFA

Edited by Sam_68 on Thursday 24th June 18:01

[MX7]

darth_pies said:

MX7 said:

It's a difficult one to answer. I have no doubt that Caterham drivers turn their noses up at my Westfield, but possibly original Lotus 7 drivers turn their noses up at a Caterham.

I think the real opposition is directed towards those who take a normal, mass production car, and try to make it into something far superior by sticking on some fiberglass panels. I know that there was a 'replica' DB4 in here a while back, but it was built from scratch, and looked absolutely stunning. I would have been exceptionally happy to be the owner of that.

Some Lotus 7 drivers do turn their noses up. But the question was which replicas are acceptable.

Since Caterham were already the exclusive Lotus 7 dealer at the time, and bought the rights to the car from Lotus, plus all the jigs and tooling, that doesn't really count as a replica does it!?!?

I don't know. I think that's what I was asking. What's the definition of a replica?

Also, I thought Caterham were the last dealer, not the exclusive dealer?

darth_pies said:

Or is a Porsche a replica VW Beetle with 60 years of additional development???

No.

darth_pies said:

W**tfields on the other hand are straightforward replicas 'Lotus 7 inspired cars'

So much so that Caterham could have just turned a blind eye to what was happening in Kingswinford?!

[Cock Womble 7]

Sam_68 said:

Cock Womble 7 said:

...the Caterham is not a replica; it was a re-introduction of a discontinued and superseded design.

It was a re-introduction of a discontinued and superseded design, as a matter of fact.

Yeah, that's what I said.