Replica's 'v' Real thing in the press
Discussion
Drive magazine have a feature in their May edition where they show a couple of supercar owners a 355, Diablo and GT40 kit.
These guys (who drive a Murcielago and a 911 turbo) needed to look a little closer than the mile or so away that has been suggested on here to tell the 355 was a kit.
The other 2 were a little harder to distiguish.
Strange how the Lambo owner suggested the interior was pretty much bang on and the Porsche driver suggested the black rear bumper and the aftermarket gearstick were givaways(both of which were correct).
These guys (who drive a Murcielago and a 911 turbo) needed to look a little closer than the mile or so away that has been suggested on here to tell the 355 was a kit.
The other 2 were a little harder to distiguish.
Strange how the Lambo owner suggested the interior was pretty much bang on and the Porsche driver suggested the black rear bumper and the aftermarket gearstick were givaways(both of which were correct).
Pwig said:
Thats great, if your not into cars and just use them to pose, and try and 'improve' your image.
I think you'll find that image is very tightly bound to most car ownership. It's very tiresome to repeatedly hear non-kitcar owners knocking guys who have spent their own time and money, doing something for themselves. Give it a rest...
And have a look at a GT40 replica - how on earth you would be able to distinguish (a decent) one from an original is beyond me, and that includes actually driving it.
Don't get kit cars confused with replicas. There are some pretty good GT40 replicas out there. A friend of mine has just built a Gulf Porsche 917 replica and it is the dogs dannglies. I have a Dtype Jaguar replica/kit car and I can tell one of my make from an original from 1/2 a mile away but some people still ask if it is an original or replica.
It is all down to personal choice and budget, I don't have over £100K to buy an exact copy so I am quite content with what I have.
It is all down to personal choice and budget, I don't have over £100K to buy an exact copy so I am quite content with what I have.
falcemob said:
Don't get kit cars confused with replicas. There are some pretty good GT40 replicas out there. A friend of mine has just built a Gulf Porsche 917 replica and it is the dogs dannglies. I have a Dtype Jaguar replica/kit car and I can tell one of my make from an original from 1/2 a mile away but some people still ask if it is an original or replica.
It is all down to personal choice and budget, I don't have over £100K to buy an exact copy so I am quite content with what I have.
Indeed. Although the terms kit-car and replica can cover such a wide range that you can effectively choose your own definition. Most of the GT40 replicas are still kit-cars, having been bought as a kit of parts from a manufacturer, and assembled from the kit form into a completed car. Appreciate there ARE replicas which are manufactured as such (like the D-type replicas, which are awesome), but that's a proposition which is out of most people's budgets.
softwaresorcerer said:
Thats great, if your not into cars and just use them to pose, and try and 'improve' your image.
I think you'll find that image is very tightly bound to most car ownership. It's very tiresome to repeatedly hear non-kitcar owners knocking guys who have spent their own time and money, doing something for themselves. Give it a rest...
And have a look at a GT40 replica - how on earth you would be able to distinguish (a decent) one from an original is beyond me, and that includes actually driving it.
GT40 Reps are acceptable, as they are bascially just the same as the original, in the sense of running gear etc, so its just like building another.
Lambo reps and MR2 Ferraris are nothing like that, nothing to do with the driving experience, and everything to do with posing.
Pwig said:
Lambo reps and MR2 Ferraris are nothing like that, nothing to do with the driving experience, and everything to do with posing.
Like owning a geniune Lambo or Ferrari has nothing to do with posing?
Last year I did an interview for totalkitcar with a bloke who bought a replica Diablo in preference to a real one.
In his price range the only real ones he could afford were ropey early models that would have cost him a fortune in servicing and repairs.
His replica has steel spaceframe chassis similar to original, all round wishbone suspension and discs and mid-mounted Rover V8 (TVR spec by now).
Maybe it's not quite as fast as an original, but it still has all the essential ingredients of a genuine supercar.
As for the driving experience, well he was using it as everyday transport. How many owners of real Diablos do that?
So saying that owning a supercar replica is nothing to do with driving and everything to do with posing is about as accurate as saying that everybody who buys a BMW only does so because of the badge.
Pwig said:
Pwig said:
Thats great, if your not into cars and just use them to pose, and try and 'improve' your image.
I think you'll find that image is very tightly bound to most car ownership. It's very tiresome to repeatedly hear non-kitcar owners knocking guys who have spent their own time and money, doing something for themselves. Give it a rest...
And have a look at a GT40 replica - how on earth you would be able to distinguish (a decent) one from an original is beyond me, and that includes actually driving it.
GT40 Reps are acceptable, as they are bascially just the same as the original, in the sense of running gear etc, so its just like building another.
Lambo reps and MR2 Ferraris are nothing like that, nothing to do with the driving experience, and everything to do with posing.
I've said before that the MR2 replicas don't 'do it' for me, and to a large extent I agree with you - it's style over substance. But here we differ - it's not just about posing (admittedly there is always a large element of that in cars, otherwise we would all aspire to a 500bhp Trabant, rather than drool over some exotic Italian design masterpiece) - some of those cars are very powerful with superb spaceframe chassis. They do, if not replicate, provide a similar supercar driving experience to the 'real thing'. Certainly superior to say a Rover 200 with a hole in the sump
Go to Stoneleigh and take a look at some of those cars, then perhaps make some less sweeping comments and maybe even present them as just being your thoughts - if you ram your opinions down people's throats as facts without substance, the audience tends to bristle.
grahambell said:
So saying that owning a supercar replica is nothing to do with driving and everything to do with posing is about as accurate as saying that everybody who buys a BMW only does so because of the badge.
Bugger so I'd better put my M3 up for sale then
To me it's the people that keep putting stupid stereotypes on others based on what car they want or drive (be it replica etc!) that have the problem.
Go knows what they would make of Mark Evan's?
grahambell said:
Last year I did an interview for totalkitcar with a bloke who bought a replica Diablo in preference to a real one.
In his price range the only real ones he could afford were ropey early models that would have cost him a fortune in servicing and repairs.
I spoke to a bloke last year who said exactly the same thing except he actually got the Lambo first. Had it for less than a year before he decided that he'd be better off making one from scratch (well, a kit). So he did. I couldn't tell it wasn't a real Lambo. It had a BMW V12 but it had been quite convincingly made over to look like the real deal.
andygtt said:
To me it's the people that keep putting stupid stereotypes on others based on what car they want or drive (be it replica etc!) that have the problem.
...hmmm, and what of all these 'Seven' people...should we not damn them 'cos they drive Caterham replicas??
They are obviously supposed to look like Caterhams, but I can tell them apart easily!!
Pwig said:
Pwig said:
Thats great, if your not into cars and just use them to pose, and try and 'improve' your image.
I think you'll find that image is very tightly bound to most car ownership. It's very tiresome to repeatedly hear non-kitcar owners knocking guys who have spent their own time and money, doing something for themselves. Give it a rest...
And have a look at a GT40 replica - how on earth you would be able to distinguish (a decent) one from an original is beyond me, and that includes actually driving it.
GT40 Reps are acceptable, as they are bascially just the same as the original, in the sense of running gear etc, so its just like building another.
Lambo reps and MR2 Ferraris are nothing like that, nothing to do with the driving experience, and everything to do with posing.
PMSL!
Says the voice of experience from his Japanese mass produced Lotus looky likey - not!
Here, you missed out on this one:
http://tinyurl.com/7b94y
i cant belive people are still arguing about this!!!
if its all about the driving experience why would you spend £100,000 on a ferrari or whatever when you could have a ultima thats just as fast if not quicker for half the price! looks like maybe your just paying for the name?!
and its been proven that if you really want (and have enough money!) you can make a replica thats better and faster than the original (yes even mr2 ferrais!)
in newzealand theres a company that make lambo replicas thats won the newzealand rally a couple of times.
you can run a replica for about £500 a year (obviously not including petrol!).
does anybody know how much it costs to run a real lambo or ferrari???
BrianisHHC said:
supercar owners
If they are replicas then by no means can you call them supercars.
If you re-read Ex-Biker's post you will see that it says that "Supercar owners" were asked to take a look at some replicas.
Ex-Biker said:
These guys (who drive a Murcielago and a 911 turbo)
I think that qualifies them as supercar owners....
Obviously no-one else has seen the magazine.
The point was more of looks.
Performance wise the GT40 was more powerful than the original and similar in performance.
The 355 was only the 120bhp auto, but a turbo car will give similar power to the original.
The Lambo was powered by a 460bhp (ish) V8 (from TVR) and 165mph top speed compared to the original's 200mph.
Strange thing about the 355 is that neither person spotted the rear quarter windows being different.
The point was more of looks.
Performance wise the GT40 was more powerful than the original and similar in performance.
The 355 was only the 120bhp auto, but a turbo car will give similar power to the original.
The Lambo was powered by a 460bhp (ish) V8 (from TVR) and 165mph top speed compared to the original's 200mph.
Strange thing about the 355 is that neither person spotted the rear quarter windows being different.
Why try and differenciate between a replica and a supercar? My boss has just bought a replica Ford GT40. Its called a Ford GT. Is it a replica
Is it a supercar?
I would say as long as the design, execution and drive are good enough, a replica can easy be a supercar. But a kit car has gotta be a different kettle of fish....hasn't it??? What about a turnkey build?
Its probably been done already but i would like to see an original GT40, the current GT, and a top drawer GT40 kit tested together. And before you all tell me the GT is a different kind of thing altogether, its not. It's a present day car wrapped in old style clothes. Which is what the kits are trying to achieve all the time - hence cobras with modern chassis/engines and Diablos with Beemer V12's. OK the GT is £125k (plus the stupid money on top) but if the kit guys could develop their cars as Ford have, what money could they command?
Is it a supercar? I would say as long as the design, execution and drive are good enough, a replica can easy be a supercar. But a kit car has gotta be a different kettle of fish....hasn't it??? What about a turnkey build?
Its probably been done already but i would like to see an original GT40, the current GT, and a top drawer GT40 kit tested together. And before you all tell me the GT is a different kind of thing altogether, its not. It's a present day car wrapped in old style clothes. Which is what the kits are trying to achieve all the time - hence cobras with modern chassis/engines and Diablos with Beemer V12's. OK the GT is £125k (plus the stupid money on top) but if the kit guys could develop their cars as Ford have, what money could they command?
adove said:
but if the kit guys could develop their cars as Ford have, what money could they command?
Exactly the same price as all the specialist sports car manufacturers like Ferrari, Porsche and others do.
The sports cars of today started long ago as kit/specialist cars, even Ferrari started with a Fiat Chassis? and Porsche with a new shortened Vw Beetle chassis....
Lotus with Ford components, and the story could continue endlessly.........
Italo
but if the kit guys could develop their cars as Ford have, what money could they command?
Exactly the same price as all the specialist sports car manufacturers like Ferrari, Porsche and others do.
The sports cars of today started long ago as kit/specialist cars, even Ferrari started with a Fiat Chassis? and Porsche with a new shortened Vw Beetle chassis....
Lotus with Ford components, and the story could continue endlessly.........
Italo
Gassing Station | Kit Cars | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff