RE: PH Footnote: Continuation fever
Wednesday 14th March 2018
There's been plenty to talk about in the aftermath of last week's Geneva motor show. From Toyota's SupraRacing concept, to McLaren's almost production-ready Senna GTR, via a host of tuner specials, plenty of brands found a way make a mark.
Now, evocation and replica models have been popular amongst certain buyers for years, particularly for cars like the Shelby Cobra and Ford GT40, offering owners a taste of their dream classics without the prohibitive expense of the real thing.
It came as a surprise, then, when Marchionne was pushed on the prospect of entering that game, and replied "The answer is yes, but I struggle with the term 'continuation car'... What Jaguar has done with the lightweight cars is clever, but reinventing the 250 is a tough gig, and living off the spoils of the past is a bad habit to get into. But there's definitely a platform there, and hopefully we can show you something in the next few years."
The broader question, though, is how long before continuation becomes commonplace? Could the trend filter down through the industry to, perhaps, a continuation Mk1 Golf GTI or an E30 M3? If David Brown can charge £100,000 for a 're-mastered Mini' and Land Rover can turn out a restored V8-engined Defender for £150,000, then the market is arguably already there. Should Toyota give us a few continuation examples of the old Supra alongside the new one? Can Mazda churn out a couple of dozen more Mk1 MX-5s? If the price tag - or, more specifically, the margins - are right, you could argue that the possibilities are almost endless...
PH Footnote: Continuation for the nation
With even Ferrari contemplating a 250 continuation, how long before more mainstream brands follow suit?
Of course, Geneva isn't just about what manufacturers are doing now, but what they plan to do in future, and few attract as much attention with their plans as Ferrari. Covering a wide range of topics, from the threat of quitting F1 to the room for improvement in its GT cars, the firm's press conference threw up an interesting moment when CEO Sergio Marchionne was asked about the potential for continuation models.
The current trend for 'continuation' is a different hand-beaten kettle of fish altogether though. Cars like Jaguar's D-Type and XKSS, Aston's DB4 GT and Lister's Knobbly may still offer a saving versus the real thing, but they're certainly not cheap. Pricing in the high hundreds of thousands rather than tens of millions still places them amongst the most expensive cars on the planet; these aren't third-party ways for the common man to enjoy a legendary classic, but manufacturer endorsed schemes for the one per cent to help a brand cash in on its heritage.
That's all well and good for Aston Martin, Jaguar and the like - especially when the cars being manufactured are replacing lost build slots - but Ferrari has always placed itself above such antics. It sells its heritage through its current lineup, whatever that may be, with a line of purebred prancing horses stretching back to Enzo himself.
It's likely that he won't be the only one to struggle with the idea of a continuation Ferrari, especially one as hallowed as the 250 GTO - but, as with the inevitable 'FUV', it seems that even Ferrari isn't immune to the lure of an additional revenue stream. This raises many questions: should Ferrari be doing it in the first place? How many 'new' examples should they produce? How will existing owners react? And with so many legendary cars to choose from, which Ferrari would you most (or least) like to see revived?
Given the choice, what would you like to see plucked from a back catalogue and returned to a showroom? The Lancia Delta Integrale Evo II? The Audi RS2? The Mk1 Escort Mexico? Or is this stuff best left in the past (or else the classifieds)? As always, share your thoughts below...
Discussion
I think there are already enough non-original GTOs out there. I would suggest that most of the marque specialists across the globe have had their hands in building at least one of these. Wasn't the one that crashed at Goodwood last September also just a facsimile of the owner's real car? The interior looked all wrong to me.
Corkys said:
Problem is that these continuations cannot be driven on the road. No point in a Supra or MX5 having this limiting factor.
That's a good point. But surely then the answer is to look to things that were homologated as racing or rally cars? Then there would be a point in having new stock of them to feed into lower level classic racing and track shenanigans?Subaru - Impreza P1
Toyota - GT-Four ST185 Carlos Sainz
Audi - Ur-Quattro
Lancia - Delta Stratos
Alfa Romeo - Giulia Sprint GT
BMW - 2002 Turbo
Ford - RS200
Lotus - Cortina
Edited by Ryvita on Wednesday 14th March 11:06
I really can't see the point of a "continuation" GTO or SWB when there are already so many replicas out there.
These are (sadly, but what's done is done) usually based on 2+2 60's V12 Ferrari and thus can be used on the road.
A "continuation" car cannot as its a new vehicle that doesn't make current safety or emission regs.
So its for race or display purposes only.
Most people who wanted to race classic Ferrari without risking an original could have already bought a replica that is FIA acceptable, and probably have. There will be a few more I'm sure, but for somebody like me who doesn't race he idea of a road usable SWB replica does have appeal, a non road usable GTO or SWB is an expensive chocolate tea pot.
These are (sadly, but what's done is done) usually based on 2+2 60's V12 Ferrari and thus can be used on the road.
A "continuation" car cannot as its a new vehicle that doesn't make current safety or emission regs.
So its for race or display purposes only.
Most people who wanted to race classic Ferrari without risking an original could have already bought a replica that is FIA acceptable, and probably have. There will be a few more I'm sure, but for somebody like me who doesn't race he idea of a road usable SWB replica does have appeal, a non road usable GTO or SWB is an expensive chocolate tea pot.
Corkys said:
Problem is that these continuations cannot be driven on the road. No point in a Supra or MX5 having this limiting factor.
Nice idea though.
Exactly.Nice idea though.
Things like the David Brown Mini and JLR Discovery mentioned in the article, as well as things like the Singer 911, are all based on an original donor car that has been restored and modernised, so as to retain the original identity of the donor car, and thus remain road legal.
This is completely different to what Jaguar and Aston Martin are doing, where they are creating brand new examples of classic models, and have no legal identity as such.
Also, looking at economies of scale and the manufacturing techniques used to produce modern cars, you couldn't just knock up a few brand new mk1 Golfs or MX5s without them being prohibitively expensive.
Lord March said that these 'replicas' are not welcome at Goodwood and are viewed much the same way in the wider historic racing scene so the more marques that build them then great, we have a continuation racing series!
Personally I'm a fan just as long as they are regarded for what they are. Not the real thing but a rose tinted look back at past glories. After all the Rolling Stones can still belt out sixties classics to enormous world wide audiences what can't Jag, Aston and all the others get in on the action.
Personally I'm a fan just as long as they are regarded for what they are. Not the real thing but a rose tinted look back at past glories. After all the Rolling Stones can still belt out sixties classics to enormous world wide audiences what can't Jag, Aston and all the others get in on the action.
Just out of interest - why is a lightweight E type note the real thing?
They were planned to be built by Jaguar in the original run, they just didn't make them (they aren't mimicking destroyed ones for example).
They are built faithfully to the original design.
They are built by Jaguar.
Why are they not a genuine E type - as far as I can tell there is nothing about having to be built in the 60s to make them so.
Lord March doesn't like them as it'll give new money rabble access to their little club!
They were planned to be built by Jaguar in the original run, they just didn't make them (they aren't mimicking destroyed ones for example).
They are built faithfully to the original design.
They are built by Jaguar.
Why are they not a genuine E type - as far as I can tell there is nothing about having to be built in the 60s to make them so.
Lord March doesn't like them as it'll give new money rabble access to their little club!
I don't have a problem with it. The fact that none of these are going to be road legal is probably a good thing as it more or less ensures that they're only going to be bought by the committed enthusiast. Whether a 250LM was built in 1964 or 2018 matters not to me, I'll still get a stiffy when watching it amd hearing it go around a track.
Further to that; the original cars (for the most part) are now more 'art' than they are 'car' - delicate, collectable pieces where history is everything - whereas the continuations models won't have that, they'll just be 'car'.
Further to that; the original cars (for the most part) are now more 'art' than they are 'car' - delicate, collectable pieces where history is everything - whereas the continuations models won't have that, they'll just be 'car'.
Edited by Rawwr on Wednesday 14th March 12:01
The thing about the cars that are being continued is that they were hand-built in the first place, so can be hand built again. Not the case with the huge majority of cars, when the tooling gone - it's gone.
With Ferrari though there's an extra dimension, not just which model should they continue, but which car. No two 250s are the same, most aren't the same from one side to the other. Would they build the errors into a new car? Would the new cars have their own "bespoke" errors?
With Ferrari though there's an extra dimension, not just which model should they continue, but which car. No two 250s are the same, most aren't the same from one side to the other. Would they build the errors into a new car? Would the new cars have their own "bespoke" errors?
Vocal Minority said:
Just out of interest - why is a lightweight E type note the real thing?
Because while I suspect that those elements they talked about were made using authentic methods, I suspect a good many bits were not. I'll take the battery as an example. Wouldn't be surprised if this wasn't made from, nor was the original 60's item. Similar for every other nut, bolt, rivet, rubber seal, filter etc. It's also not had to weather the past 58 years, and the effect that has. hasn't Aston already done this previously with the Sanction 2 and 3 cars, and no one complained ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aston_Martin_DB4_GT_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aston_Martin_DB4_GT_...
phil4 said:
Vocal Minority said:
Just out of interest - why is a lightweight E type note the real thing?
Because while I suspect that those elements they talked about were made using authentic methods, I suspect a good many bits were not. I'll take the battery as an example. Wouldn't be surprised if this wasn't made from, nor was the original 60's item. Similar for every other nut, bolt, rivet, rubber seal, filter etc. It's also not had to weather the past 58 years, and the effect that has. But that doesn't answer why it isn't a real Jaguar e type. Its made by Jaguar to the Jaguar design. It's an e type.
Vocal Minority said:
It might not have the patina and story (and therefore out and out desirability) of the 60s ones true.
But that doesn't answer why it isn't a real Jaguar e type. Its made by Jaguar to the Jaguar design. It's an e type.
Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you meant as in the original Jag Etype. It clearly can't be as not made in the 60's, nor as I mentioned I suspect many of the parts aren't original design/manufacture etc.But that doesn't answer why it isn't a real Jaguar e type. Its made by Jaguar to the Jaguar design. It's an e type.
As such I expect when people say it's not an Etype, they mean it's not an original Etype. I mean this in the same way that a present day BMW Mini, isn't and won't be considered a "Mini" in the sense of the original sort designed by Issigonis.
I can only speak for myself, but my view is that if I'm going to live with all the downsides of owning a 60's car, with all it's shortcomings, I'd rather it at least be genuine, in the sense that all the bits are from the 60's.
I guess it leaves open to debate and consideration how much needs to be "original", for it to be the "real deal".
Tatraplan said:
Does this give manufacturers the 'kit car' option though? Provide all the main components for the man in a shed to assemble? Then get an IVA?
A brand new Mk 1 Golf GTi does sound like fun, especially if you build it yourself with a, cough, standard engine and 'box.
I thought I'd like a continuation Golf GTI and realised I couldn't use one on the road plus how much would one be? A brand new Mk 1 Golf GTi does sound like fun, especially if you build it yourself with a, cough, standard engine and 'box.
I bet they'd be similar money to a new Golf GTI, which wouldn't be as pure to drive but you can use it on the road plus its safer & cleaner (if VW are to be believed). And you could buy a very good original for that kind of money.
So unless they are Singer style re-imagined existing cars, so you can use them on the road, they'll be rich people's play things - so if you can afford £25K for a non-road use car you can probably afford to spend more on something more special, if you're using it like that.
I do like the idea of a continuation race series though.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff