Is a Reproduction Ever Acceptable?

I think when it comes to repros there are a number of categories which soemtimes get confused.
There are Kit cars, reproductions, recreations, tool room copies,and various greay areas in between.
In Kit cars we have a broad range of machines, from Vw powered bugattis, to vette ferraris, Countaches with Chevies, to even possibly FFr cobras. To me a kit car is eitehr an origional design, or a visual approximation of an out of production car, no kit car used the same build method or mechanical componants as an orgional. The FFr might be debatable, but the body is glass the chassis completly different, completly different suspemsion it has a sold axle and some type of pushrod v8.

Recreations are cars that are pretty clsoe to an orgional, but might or might not not be built under license an have some minor variances. Think Kirkham Cobra, or SPF GT40.

An era cobra would be in between example, the chassi layout is pretty close to a “real” cobra and it uses galss, most are 4 speed big blocks and probably drive more or less the same. A Bell Stratos, uses a different engine and different chassi but is really close in concept and execution. These two are somewhere between Kit and recreation.

A recreation will be built the same way as an orgional with origional materials to the extent possible and the origional style powerplant.Take the example of the SPF GT40, its built under licese, the tub is the same asa period build, the differences are in uprights in aluminum not magnesium, similar but more modern brakes and some cabin detail. Its a recreation will drive and appear the same as a period build. A pur sang Bugatti is anotehr example, there are some screws and bilts different to a 1929 car, and the distributor is different too. As Buggati people say, what makes a bugatti is how its made, the blueprint used and the materials used, not when. We can also add Lynx XKss here and some proteus Ctypes. You can these days also buy new 60s mustang shells and camaros. Depemnding on how its finished and motor used it could be a recreation, tool room copy or a restomod.
We might also argue that certain allegreti GTO’s are recreations, or they might be tool room copies.

If SPF GT40 runbs a 351 and not a 302 block, well its a grey recreation area potentialy.

Now tool room copies are nut and bolt rivet for rivet, switch for switch, instrument for instrument resurections. I think there have been some GTOs done in this vein, Croswaite did a few auto unionsGP cars for audi. Gelescoe does some GT40’s. Ferrai dis one of their early cars. An aston DB4GT zagato sanction 2 might be in this category or somewhere in between this and a recreation.

I am going to say a large number of vintage racers are tool room copies/recreations with an old data plate

Licensing also creates a grey area, Shelby licenses glass cobras, but unless aluminum bodeid they are like an ERa somewhere between Kit and recreation. An SPF GT40 is licensed, but it needs a bout 30K in detail changes to race at goodwood, a gelescoe GT40 does not but costs twice. So maybe a SPF is somewhere between a recreation and a tool room.

Or maybe we have grades of 1-3 in each category.

Whatever the category, i assume we are all car people and welcome people into the hobby. Kit cars are amazinbgly creative and some have great engineering, plus you have to respect the skill and enthisiasm of soemone who builds one of these, as long as its not a fake badge pose, its awesome..
An area where I see downside is with poseurs pretending. We see this in the kit car area with fake ferraris for a pose.

As to recreations on up, they have their own value now and are really new builds of period cars, built the same way to the same or betetr stabdards with origional materials, and doing agreat job of keeping the classic car keeping the hobby alive. Frankly i would love to see a race of period designs of the type we dont see on tarck anymore. Half the cars at the goodwood GT40 reunion were gelescoe.

These older cars were built for racing and racing hard, or being driven and used. As the period builds escalate in value into rare art, to enjoy the machines recreations fill the gap for drivers and spectators.

The other area I think is bad is when otherwise rare cars get chopped to make recreations. Yes there was a time when ferrari 250GTE’s were rusty 10K cars, so some GTos got made. But today you can get every part for your GTo inclusing the transmission cases and engine bocks no need to chop. The reason why Chops still take place is because if you chop a ferrari you can still put ferrari badges on it. I would argue thta acceopting recreations and tool room copies not only enhances the hobby, it also saves are old cars from the chop. The most egregious example of this was thre Ferrari can am car thta survived intact from the 60s as it had left the factory, had its body removed and changes made to the chassis, a replica body installed to turn it back into a P4
In other words a period pice intact from the 60s, from maranello was chopped and tuernd into a bitsa, to make a theoreticaly more desireable car.

In conclusion a cool car is a cool car. Kit cars are aht they are. reacreations and tool room copies seem to hold value and even appreciate, the audience is growing too. Buy what yoiu like and remember that as an investment its pretty hard to beat the right period buikt machine(investemnts go up and down), but if its for drivign there are lots of great choices.

Absolutely, so long as it’s done right.

Personally, I have an idea for a company that produces new versions of old classic cars. You could go out and either buy the old tooling, or produce your own, to make brand new Alfa GTVs, or E-Types, or 911s, or Chargers, or any one of thousands of popular (and expensive) classic cars. You could sell them ostensibly as kit cars to get through the same legislation loopholes as Caterham.

These would still be replicas, but more akin to exact reproductions than most. Similar to what Pur Sang are doing with old Bugattis and Alfa 8Cs, albeit on a cheaper scale.

The economies of scale wouldn’t be there like the original production runs, but neither would the development costs. You could also make money selling whole new bodyshells and engines separately to keep existing cars on the road.

As far as I understand, there is no problem [i]per se[/i] in replicas. No one would make a replica from a car not being worthy. So, making replicas allows having on the road vehicles which are out of production, and are part of history. However, two commitments: 1) never pretend owning an original, because replica can be fantastic but has no personal history behind and 2) try to be respectful with the original. Motors should be not too far, as qualities.

The way I look at it, a heavily restored car can be as much a replica as a tubular frame, pure-to-the-brand repro. Yes, the restored proposition was at least once an original car, but depending on the rebirth, many of its parts will be replicated. Though reproduction replicas lack the personal history or some of the originality of a restored car, they can still be faithful to the brand their styling may represent. That’s really the key in determining whether or not a replicated car is “acceptable” or not.

I am fine with replicas – for about 9 years I had an early Beck Spyder, bundle of fun was always upfront on what is was.

Not practical, not safe (over powered and 2′ off the ground), what’s not to love?

http://thestones.webs.com/spyder/kdk_0399.jpg

All good points here. For me, the quality of the replica is of foremost importance, and I am much more inclined to ‘accept’ built-from-scratch examples (e.g. Shelby continuations, Superformance cars, any number of D/C-Type replicas you’ll find, etc.) rather than cars that start as ’90s Mustangs, old Fieros, etc. In fact, I was really admiring the 50th Anniversary FIA Cobras Shelby had on display at Barrett-Jackson and could certainly envision owning one.

In summary – as with anything – Quality, Quality, Quality.

p.s. Even the very highest quality replica/re-creation may be difficult or virtually impossible to title in many states, so that’s an important consideration to take into account. Titling should be one of the very first and most thoroughly researched steps in your research.

This is an excellent discussion topic, although the terms “Replica” and “Reproduction” are not at all interchangeable. A “Replica” is a copy of a car, much like a Beck Speedster. A “Reproduction” would be the original manufacturer re-producing an earlier model, like the Shelby “Continuation-Series” Cobras. So, there are two distinct questions being asked. Replicas can be fun, easier to own than the originals, and very nice if properly built. I’m thinking about examples such as the ERA Cobra or ERA GT40 built in New Britain, Connecticut. These are much cheaper than an original or continuation-series cars, well-engineered, and visually as close to the original as possible. There’s also the Lister Bell Lancia Stratos, which looks as if it is just as nice, besides you can drive one without the fear of it being an irreplaceable original. Some of the reproductions out there are just as cool. Besides the Shelby Cobras, there are brand-new Allards and Cheetahs, which can be expensive but fun. And new. Ideally, you should probably just buy what you’d like and go from there. After all, if it isn’t fun, what’s the point, right?

To me personally replicas and reproductions are just fine. I don’t really see a problem with them if they are made with a decent amount of quality in the chassis and body. Im a big believer in keeping things close to original as possible so as long as the replica and/or the reproduction stays true to the authentic intent of the car and its design then i dont really see a problem with it. I know some people out there think it cheapens the original. i personally dont believe it the cobra has been replicated god knows how many times but the originals still brings big bucks. A replica is a great way to enjoy a dream car without having to be a millionaire to do it