Why are folk so snobby about "kit cars"?

[toppstuff]

nta16 said:

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

You are really, really wrong here, fella. If anything, you are showing inverted snobbery.

It is all about quality. That is everything.

Taking a C or D type as an example, an all aluminium Proteus or Lynx C type is a hand made, detailed and wonderful thing, with a real XK engine and perfect detailing. With a few miles on them, they are practically impossible to tell apart from a £3m original.

There is nothing wrong with kit cars. As many have said, plenty of Lotus cars started out that way. The Elan is an epic piece of kit. I have a soft spot for the Marcos, which also started the same way.

But some kit cars are bloody horrible. A lot of them, I would say.

Snobbery does not come into it. Quality of design, engineering and integrity is all that matters.

[72twink]

I think we need to think along defined lines, a production car sold with a few components removed (Elan/Europa/Marcos/Caterham etc) but sold as a kit is a long way removed from taking a scabby old Cortina, throwing the shell away, buying a badly designed collection of parts and creating a pastiche of a Bugatti (for example) that as far as the DVLA are concerned is still a Ford product. Tool room facsimilies and replicas fall into yet another distinct group.

[nta16]

toppstuff said:

Quality of design, engineering and integrity is all that matters.

to a certain price level yes but after that obviously not

you missed out the looks of the car too, which is a very subjective, er, subject

are you saying one car is ten times better than another or twenty times or many hundreds of times better and how do you judge this, on what it cost to manufacture, how long it lasts, how well it goes

at what level do you surpass even diminishing returns on costs/value

[toppstuff]

nta16 said:

toppstuff said:

Quality of design, engineering and integrity is all that matters.

to a certain price level yes but after that obviously not

you missed out the looks of the car too, which is a very subjective, er, subject

are you saying one car is ten times better than another or twenty times or many hundreds of times better and how do you judge this, on what it cost to manufacture, how long it lasts, how well it goes

at what level do you surpass even diminishing returns on costs/value

Cost does not come into it. Quality does - quality of design, quality of execution.

Someone could take a simple car as a basis for creating a wonderfully light, perfectly designed and engineered roadster. They could invest time and knowledge to get the gearing just right, the steering light and delicate, the handling sublime. Cost does not really come into it. Such a car could be based on humble origins. And they can call it a Barney Bear for all I care, as long as the car had some thought and skill put into it.

An old neighbour of mine had an example of this - an NG TC. It was a V8 engined roadster kit with a Rover V8 and a retro , pre war style body on it. The thing is though, a lot of care and effort and time went into the construction. Quality dampers were tried, rejected, tried again. Different steering was tried. Lots of fine tuning was done to damper rates, camber, steering racks, etc etc... The end result was something to be proud of. It really did drive very, very well. It didn't cost much money either.

It must also be noted that the builder of the car tried some other examples of the same kit and thought they were awful - so he wanted to make sure that his was not, hence the effort put into the detail.

This tends not to happen however IMO, although some kit cars do have this ethos.

Too many kit cars instead try to do the "fake bling" thing with scissor doors, big wheels, poor styling. They try to pretend they are something they are not. They have no integrity of design. They deserve the ridicule they get IMO.

So it is not about money. Not all the time, anyway.

[nta16]

I know what you mean about some owners (car or factory) put in a lot more effort than others

and I know the NG TC as I thought about buying the kit (I can't remember them being inexpensive, especially fully built up but costs and and values are relative)

at the end of a show at Duxford I thought I'd have a quick word with the guys on the NG stand and as I drove slowly passed looking for somewhere to park up in my much better (factory) built Westfield Seight one of the guys said sneeringly and in a condensing way something like "oh, look it's a Westfield"

so he didn't get any business from me (I had a converted V8 B roadster at the time and thought about changing it into a NG TC)

had it not been the end of the day I'd have let him know he'd lost a potential customer and/or taken the p*ss out of him but as it was already a long boring day (what static-cars-on-a-field-car-shows aren't) I just carried on driving

[toppstuff]

nta16 said:

I know what you mean about some owners (car or factory) put in a lot more effort than others

and I know the NG TC as I thought about buying the kit (I can't remember them being inexpensive, especially fully built up but costs and and values are relative)

at the end of a show at Duxford I thought I'd have a quick word with the guys on the NG stand and as I drove slowly passed looking for somewhere to park up in my much better (factory) built Westfield Seight one of the guys said sneeringly and in a condensing way something like "oh, look it's a Westfield"

so he didn't get any business from me (I had a converted V8 B roadster at the time and thought about changing it into a NG TC)

had it not been the end of the day I'd have let him know he'd lost a potential customer and/or taken the p*ss out of him but as it was already a long boring day (what static-cars-on-a-field-car-shows aren't) I just carried on driving

Wow, so you even get snobbery and back stabbing inside the kit car community.. how charming..

[The Surveyor]

Just as a further example of why kit cars are often mis-understood.

Take the MX5, very much loved small sports car and available to suit most budgets. For similar money you could have:-

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Mazda-MX5-MX5-Kit-Car-Co... an Astonish!

or this

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/2008-MAZDA-MX-5-1-8I-OPT...

I would be astonished if anybody would spend their £7.5k on the 1990 MX5 based fake Aston instead of the 2008 original.

Paul

[Jukebag]

That Aston Martin rep MX5 just looks awful, the front is all wrong and I got the feeling straight away that it's a kit car. The Aristocat XK120 imo is also a quite bad example of the real thing, comparing it to its better, more pricey version, the Nostalgia you can tell immediately which one is the better. But, at least the Aristocat doesn't claim it's a direct copy of the original, more of a homage or look-alike. Replica/kits should be classed in different groups: replicas (direct copies using original parts, created to high standards), kits (kit based versions using different parts/chassis from the original), and look-a-likes (a look-a-like to the original but with a different style or shape, with a passing resemblance to the original).

Those comparing prices of a poor kit vs the real thing, and why, for a bit more money you can have the real McCoy need to keep in mind other important factors which stop the average person from obtaining the real thing in the first place, one of those is running costs. Most people running anything like a 4.2, V12 or 6 litre engine will soon find it eating away at your wallet; a 6.1 Cobra engine will get you around 8 miles to the gallon. The other factor is rust issues. Noone on a limited budget who doesn't quite have a big bank account wants to fork out ridiculous amounts of money to try and keep the car from rusting over the winter months. Those who slate the kit versions over the real thing can obviously afford the hefty restoration costs or rust proofing, as well as expensive panels and replacement parts, then start all over again when the rust comes back. And if your'e only on a modest pension and are hitting your late 60s/early 70s, I don't think you want to spend all of your time and energy in a cold garage trying to eliminate rust, you want to have the car ready for the good weather. Even if I could afford a real, I would opt for a decent reproduction made from a fibreglass body rather than the real one which would rust. With examples like E-Types, which were notorious for rusting, I'd buy a replica that won't.

Edited by Jukebag on Tuesday 12th August 17:34

Edited by Jukebag on Tuesday 12th August 21:22

[nta16]

toppstuff said:

Wow, so you even get snobbery and back stabbing inside the kit car community.. how charming..

how very dare you! my car wasn't a kit car it was factory built, thank you!













I better add here for those that don't know I'm not really upset by that remark, I was often asked how long it took to build - as if I'd travel in a car I'd built, no way

[Russwhitehouse]

Jukebag said:

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.

That did make me chuckle. You are right of course, that is the image most people have, and to be fair is probably an accurate description of the majority of Healey owners outwith the competition fraternity.

[Bull1t]

Jukebag said:

Those comparing prices of a poor kit vs the real thing, and why, for a bit more money you can have the real McCoy need to keep in mind other important factors which stop the average person from obtaining the real thing in the first place, one of those is running costs. Most people running anything like a 4.2, V12 or 6 litre engine will soon find it eating away at your wallet; a 6.1 Cobra engine will get you around 8 miles to the gallon.

I understand your point but I'm not sure how relevant it is when its applied to fuel economy. Given the limited mileage almost every toy car (and thats all most of these are) does the cost of fuel would be trivial compared to some of the other ownership costs.

I have no problem with proper looking kit-cars or replicas. Most people won't ever be able to afford a real C-type/Cobra/GT40/550 spyder/etc so why shouldn't they have something that to most people looks the same. Sure within this category there are better kits than others but everyone has their heart in the right place and is working within their budget.

If people have a kit car that isn't even trying to be a copy of something else they should be judged on their own merit. How well they're built, what they look like, drive like etc. One that does it well is as deserving as anything else.

Where it really falls over for me is cars that are obvious to everyone (except the owner?) that they're not the real thing. The most obvious being Toyota based Ferrari kits or the Aston MX5 above but there are lots more. A combination of incorrectly transcribed lines and more usually the base car having totally different proportions. These I don't understand how anyone can own, I wouldn't even want to be seen in one let alone own it.

[Jukebag]

To be honest, I think very few ordinary earning folk can even afford a replica of say a D or C-Type; they command anything from 30 or 40 grand up to 400k; How many can afford even 40 grand?, certainly noone I know or noone who is silly enough to splash out that amount of money on something that (which the none car minded person would say) doesn't have a roof and all the modern mod cons of a car. That's why people who desire to have these cars have no choice but to have what I would call 'the poor man's replica', built on a Ford chassis/running gear using bits from a Cortina or Mondeo, with the engine generally either a Ford 2 litre Pinto, Essex or other similar engine. For example those you don't exactly have 50 grand+ spare for a decent E-Type Jag at least have a choice (if you can find one for sale) of a replica like the Challenger; only problem is you'd still need 20 grand for one and deep pockets to run the Jaguar 4.2 litre engine. The alternative is a Wildcat, which mainly used Ford components and running gear, and you have a choice of putting any engine in if one desires. If you're a real expert or anorak on such a car, you will nitpick every minor imperfection on the body, but for the average joe on the street they won't notice the larger front or back, different door handles, etc and will see it for what is supposedly is. But it's not about fooling people, it's simply wanting one but for its looks only and accepting the minor differences and be able to drive it and enjoy it.

[lowdrag]

As someone who wrote for the JDC for a few years as the replica correspondent, I do get irate about the snobbery that is manifested from time to time. In a perfect Animal Farm world we would all be able to afford a C or D-type or XKSS, but the world is not yet Orwellian I'm afraid. I've owned three "replicas" one actually a true enough replica that it has been invited to the Revival and the Festival, but still I heard people sniping and snide comments like "Don't know why it's here really, it's not a real one you know" even though the real one hadn't existed for 50 years and more. There really is no pleasing some people ever, but Lord March is more enlightened than some of his plebian entrance-paying drones and is, as was remarked in Octane this month, prepared to accept true replicas if the originals no longer exist. Enter the saddle-tank Lancia Ferraris and the shark nose Ferrari.

I've owned two Lynx D-types, short and long nose, and as most of you know one is now an XKSS, lovingly converted by CKL for me. I can't afford the real thing nor never will be, but it is the pleasure I get from them that is affordable. I have no gripes with any of the replicas really, as long as they are reasonable facsimiles. The Copycat XK, the Challenger and Wildcat already mentioned, and so on, but some replicas like Lynx are now commanding rather ridiculous prices. Trouble is, building a true replica is exhorbitantly expensive, (£400,000 for an XKSS but 10% of that for a Realm if you do it yourself.) But owning a replica is all about, as I concluded each article, "living the dream". We all have the right to dream.

Edited by lowdrag on Wednesday 13th August 16:10

[Hooli]

nta16 said:

I know what you mean about some owners (car or factory) put in a lot more effort than others

and I know the NG TC as I thought about buying the kit (I can't remember them being inexpensive, especially fully built up but costs and and values are relative)

at the end of a show at Duxford I thought I'd have a quick word with the guys on the NG stand and as I drove slowly passed looking for somewhere to park up in my much better (factory) built Westfield Seight one of the guys said sneeringly and in a condensing way something like "oh, look it's a Westfield"

so he didn't get any business from me (I had a converted V8 B roadster at the time and thought about changing it into a NG TC)

had it not been the end of the day I'd have let him know he'd lost a potential customer and/or taken the p*ss out of him but as it was already a long boring day (what static-cars-on-a-field-car-shows aren't) I just carried on driving

My dad has a NG TF. It's fun, but it feels like a fibreglass bucket on wheels. He didn't build it btw, so that's not his fault.

[SV8Predator]

lowdrag said:

We all have the right to dream.

That's very true. But is it snobbishness when you keep referring to your car as 'the XKSS'?

It's not an XKSS is it, it's a replica, as you've explained in your above post? A replica, or a kit car, what is the definitive answer, I wonder?

[mph]

SV8Predator said:

That's very true. But is it snobbishness when you keep referring to your car as 'the XKSS'?

It's not an XKSS is it, it's a replica, as you've explained in your above post? A replica, or a kit car, what is the definitive answer, I wonder?

Can't quite see the point you're trying to make.

I don't see any ambiguity in Lowdrags description and since a kit car can also be a replica there is no definitive answer.

Not that I'm sure what your question is.

[nta16]

Hooli said:

My dad has a NG TF. It's fun, but it feels like a fibreglass bucket on wheels. He didn't build it btw, so that's not his fault.

wellll, he could improve it couldn't he so it is his fault it remains so

same with slow, poor handling and unreliable classics it's the owners that make or keep them in this state

[Noble P4]

I spent the early part of the 1980's working in the motor trade when the kit car business really took off (mainly publicised by Peter Filby, anyone remember when his mags were mail order only?). I think the kit car trade was judged early on, and gained a lasting reputation, by the products available at that time and by god there were some shockers. Some customers came to us (independent body shop) for advice on finishing kits they had started and in all honesty some needed re engineering and some starting again. That said there were also some superb quality kits that mostly sent their manufacturers to the wall due to the high development/production costs and these gems were overshadowed by the poor products that sold in greater numbers due to their apparent lower build price.
Every vehicle, production/low volume/kit or otherwise should be judged on its own merits and any pistonhead that dismisses a vehicle based on its production type/method is, in my opinion, missing out.

[Hooli]

nta16 said:

Hooli said:

My dad has a NG TF. It's fun, but it feels like a fibreglass bucket on wheels. He didn't build it btw, so that's not his fault.

wellll, he could improve it couldn't he so it is his fault it remains so

TBH, in his physical state these days, No but I agree with your point. It's not a bad car really, but knowing it's fibreglass kind of ruins it in my head from the start.

[lowdrag]

SV8Predator said:

That's very true. But is it snobbishness when you keep referring to your car as 'the XKSS'?

It's not an XKSS is it, it's a replica, as you've explained in your above post? A replica, or a kit car, what is the definitive answer, I wonder?

Ignoring the semantics of your criticism, a replica replicates, so in the true definition of the word every "replica" must be a full-on FIA-papered copy. But a kit car is a loosely defined lookalike. The trouble is that these two are worlds apart and are just white and black, ignoring the grey. Have a look at Pur Sang for instance, then also have a look at the Martin Cobra lookalike. In the middle are "kit cars" such as Lynx, beautifully constructed in alloy but using E-type mechanics to keep the cost down. To make one today would cost probably £250,000 as a loose guess. That's what they are selling for anyway. James Hull's XKSS, a full-on copy, cost over £400,000 five years back, yet you'd be hard pressed, unless you look underneath, to tell the difference between my "Lynx XKSS lookalike" (there. does that feel better?) and his. I lunched with an eminent racing driver today and his opinion of a replica is identical to the above by the way.

In essence, the grey part comprises damned well made cars (light grey) down to poorly-moulded and finished lookalikes that are not well thought out (dark grey), and it is up to the depth of your pocket which you choose.