Replica cars. what's the general consensus?
Discussion
Not talking about MR2 based Ferrari 355 but properly engineered replicas such as this for example...
http://www.pistonheads.com/classifieds/used-cars/b...
Is it a case of
Not original so not bothered.
Even better reason to use it because it's not original.
Wonderful engineering and newer therefore better.
Original is beyond reach so this will do.
I'm not in the market but always found cars like this a strange thing to work out.
http://www.pistonheads.com/classifieds/used-cars/b...
Is it a case of
Not original so not bothered.
Even better reason to use it because it's not original.
Wonderful engineering and newer therefore better.
Original is beyond reach so this will do.
I'm not in the market but always found cars like this a strange thing to work out.
I like them.
GT40s, Cobras, Miuras etc are by and large garage queens assuming you have and want to spend the enormous sums of money on them.
I can see why some people may not want to buy one, but in the same way that someone's sexuality has absolutely no effect on another person, whether a car is genuine or a replica could only trouble a numpty - unless replica was being passed off as a high value original. Even then it's the owner not the car at fault.
I'd much rather see a replica Cobra out on the roads than yet another genuine BMW M3 bought for the same money.
It's alien to some people, but some other people actually enjoy building things.
More power to them I say.
GT40s, Cobras, Miuras etc are by and large garage queens assuming you have and want to spend the enormous sums of money on them.
I can see why some people may not want to buy one, but in the same way that someone's sexuality has absolutely no effect on another person, whether a car is genuine or a replica could only trouble a numpty - unless replica was being passed off as a high value original. Even then it's the owner not the car at fault.
I'd much rather see a replica Cobra out on the roads than yet another genuine BMW M3 bought for the same money.
It's alien to some people, but some other people actually enjoy building things.
More power to them I say.
I definitely see the point in replicas of cars that cannot be purchased anymore due to being that bit older and rarer and hence rarely see them on the road as well.
As for some of the MR2 bolt on's... not the biggest fan but after building a kitcar I can respect the time and work that goes in to any of them to get them on to the road.
As for some of the MR2 bolt on's... not the biggest fan but after building a kitcar I can respect the time and work that goes in to any of them to get them on to the road.
covmutley said:
My thought exactly! Not sure why though, perhaps because they are rare, or just quite a common replica?
I've never been able to work it out. I think it's because they're one of the few reps that actually look like the real thing 99% of the time, and usually go as well as if not faster. If they are well built, as true to the original as possible - in spirit at least, drive as well as or better than the original, and replicas of cars that would ordinarily be impossible to purchase, for reasons such as rarity and price, then YES.
I think that if you could see the reps as modern, possibly improved takes of the old original then that sums it up.
That is why a Cobra replica is OK as long as it is V8 powered and has a decent chassis.
And a Ferrari Testarossa replica based on an MR2 is not OK. The original is inevitably far superior, having a 2L engine is not the same as a 5 litre, having Jap underpinnings is not in spirit, and part of the spirit (yet again) of a modern-ish Ferrari is the hi tech exotic engineering, none of which is present in an MR2.
Possibly you could also say that if it's a replica for the looks alone, then fail. Conversely, a car built to deliver that copies a body style (because you need a body style!) is generally OK.
I think that if you could see the reps as modern, possibly improved takes of the old original then that sums it up.
That is why a Cobra replica is OK as long as it is V8 powered and has a decent chassis.
And a Ferrari Testarossa replica based on an MR2 is not OK. The original is inevitably far superior, having a 2L engine is not the same as a 5 litre, having Jap underpinnings is not in spirit, and part of the spirit (yet again) of a modern-ish Ferrari is the hi tech exotic engineering, none of which is present in an MR2.
Possibly you could also say that if it's a replica for the looks alone, then fail. Conversely, a car built to deliver that copies a body style (because you need a body style!) is generally OK.
Seriously against the ones which are eligible for FIA status. We have a car that we can conclusively prove raced in period, but struggled even to get national passport. Yet you can buy one of these and theoretically go to Goodwood, and certainly enter any FIA event. Similarly, you can buy a 2 door Cortina, build it into a Lotus, and get FIA certification. Something deeply wrong there...
The more they cost, the touchier people seem to be about the term 'replica'. They prefer to dream up terms like 'evocation', 'recreation', 'continuation', anything but replica really!
I'd be the first to admit that the price of, say, a Lynx C-Type is fully justified when you consider the amount of work that goes into building one; but regardless of how grand a euphemism you dream up to describe these cars, an MR2 Ferrari kit and the Lynx are both designed to look like something they're not (although the extra cost of something like a Lynx means it drives and sounds like something it's not too).
The MR2-kits attempt to ape a 355 for as little money as possible, hence why they don't particularly resemble a real one. People tend to sneer at such cars but seem perfectly willing to accept Westfields, Cobra replicas, GT40 replicas, etc. I've never really understood where the line is between what is considered acceptable and what is not.
I'd be the first to admit that the price of, say, a Lynx C-Type is fully justified when you consider the amount of work that goes into building one; but regardless of how grand a euphemism you dream up to describe these cars, an MR2 Ferrari kit and the Lynx are both designed to look like something they're not (although the extra cost of something like a Lynx means it drives and sounds like something it's not too).
The MR2-kits attempt to ape a 355 for as little money as possible, hence why they don't particularly resemble a real one. People tend to sneer at such cars but seem perfectly willing to accept Westfields, Cobra replicas, GT40 replicas, etc. I've never really understood where the line is between what is considered acceptable and what is not.
I've always had a soft spot for the Chesil Speedster
http://www.chesil.biz/Chesil_Home.htm
and good quality Dino replicas
http://www.jhclassics.com/
For me they must capture elements of the original (V8 in an AC rep, an Alfa V6 in the Dino and a Beetle aircooled in the Chesil)
http://www.chesil.biz/Chesil_Home.htm
and good quality Dino replicas
http://www.jhclassics.com/
For me they must capture elements of the original (V8 in an AC rep, an Alfa V6 in the Dino and a Beetle aircooled in the Chesil)
Edited by Tannedbaldhead on Thursday 19th February 22:40
Risotto said:
The more they cost, the touchier people seem to be about the term 'replica'. They prefer to dream up terms like 'evocation', 'recreation', 'continuation', anything but replica really!
I'd be the first to admit that the price of, say, a Lynx C-Type is fully justified when you consider the amount of work that goes into building one; but regardless of how grand a euphemism you dream up to describe these cars, an MR2 Ferrari kit and the Lynx are both designed to look like something they're not (although the extra cost of something like a Lynx means it drives and sounds like something it's not too).
The MR2-kits attempt to ape a 355 for as little money as possible, hence why they don't particularly resemble a real one. People tend to sneer at such cars but seem perfectly willing to accept Westfields, Cobra replicas, GT40 replicas, etc. I've never really understood where the line is between what is considered acceptable and what is not.
Personally I like replicas that replicate both form and function. Replicas that only worry about how they look, and not about how they drive or perform are dreadful things. You can make a 406 coupe look remarkably like a Ferrari, but at the end of the day you've still got a front engined Peugeot v6 instead of a mid engined screaming Ferrari v8. I think it's fair enough to differentiate between something like that and say, a Cobra replica that uses an appropriate v8. I'd be the first to admit that the price of, say, a Lynx C-Type is fully justified when you consider the amount of work that goes into building one; but regardless of how grand a euphemism you dream up to describe these cars, an MR2 Ferrari kit and the Lynx are both designed to look like something they're not (although the extra cost of something like a Lynx means it drives and sounds like something it's not too).
The MR2-kits attempt to ape a 355 for as little money as possible, hence why they don't particularly resemble a real one. People tend to sneer at such cars but seem perfectly willing to accept Westfields, Cobra replicas, GT40 replicas, etc. I've never really understood where the line is between what is considered acceptable and what is not.
No particular opinion, but thanks for posting that Bugatti advert - I really rather enjoyed reading its detailed and well-written "description" which was actually more like half the workshop manual!
Excellent.
ETA: Have you seen the extended photo set? http://vandpcars.smugmug.com/Cars/Chris-Marshall-T...
Bloody marvellous. Now I really look at it, I would pay £80k for that.
Excellent.
ETA: Have you seen the extended photo set? http://vandpcars.smugmug.com/Cars/Chris-Marshall-T...
Bloody marvellous. Now I really look at it, I would pay £80k for that.
Edited by McSam on Thursday 19th February 23:07
If a faithful recreation of the 275 NART Spyder ever becomes available then I shalln't care if you call it a replica. It will matter not if people call it a recreation, tribute, kit, whatever, in fact I could live with people calling it a copy. Pointing and laughing behind my back, sniggering too, it's all good. Anyone want to hate on the V8 rumble from under the bonnet, I'll live with that too. Just make the car. I will buy it, plain & simple. 
ChevronB19 said:
Seriously against the ones which are eligible for FIA status. We have a car that we can conclusively prove raced in period, but struggled even to get national passport. Yet you can buy one of these and theoretically go to Goodwood, and certainly enter any FIA event. Similarly, you can buy a 2 door Cortina, build it into a Lotus, and get FIA certification. Something deeply wrong there...
From a value perspective I can see your point, but speaking as a pure racing fan, I'd rather recreations be allowed to race or events like the Silverstone Classic will get a lot quieter as prices of these cars just keep climbing. Plus, watching the Evo Track Car of the Year video last week has put the Broadley T76 firmly into number 1 on my most wanted car list.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff