Authenticity

OK, I've received a tremendous amount of information from everyone on the page and also the vendors. They've been very helpful. I guess my last question here would be: In the opinion of those who know the GT40, which kit do you feel is the closest to the original MK I. Basically, the chassis is what I'm most intersted in. Which one is constructed most like the '60s Mk I GT40?
Thanks
 

David Morton

Lifetime Supporter
Mirage kneck and kneck joint leader with Gelscoe.
Excepting Safir and CAV (the latter seen at one of the NEC shows) the rest from Ian's list I have not seen.
 
Gelscoe
Snook
Mirage
Gox
SPF
CAV

Would be my guess at the order

Ian

Based upon what I have seen, heard, and have been told:

Gelscoe/Mirage/Gox/Classic Car Developments all tie for top honors
(excluding Holman-Moody of course, but that is a MkII).

I haven't seen John Snook's chassis yet, but I recall he was also working
very close to original.

Then, in order:

SPF
ERA
CAV

Ian
 

Ian Anderson

Lifetime Supporter
Gelscoe/Mirage/Gox/Classic Car Developments all tie for top honors
(excluding Holman-Moody of course, but that is a MkII).

I haven't seen John Snook's chassis yet, but I recall he was also working
very close to original.

Then, in order:

SPF
ERA
CAV

Ian[/QUOTE]


Ok I missed ERA but agree somewhere around the SPF marque

and of course the Kiwi chassis which are excellent John Shand

And Snook is Roy Snook - first class in all ways but not yet as roller (his pressings have been used on a few original rebuilds)

Ian
 
Gelscoe/Mirage/Gox/Classic Car Developments all tie for top honors
(excluding Holman-Moody of course, but that is a MkII).

I haven't seen John Snook's chassis yet, but I recall he was also working
very close to original.

Then, in order:

SPF
ERA
CAV

Ian

Ok I missed ERA but agree somewhere around the SPF marque

and of course the Kiwi chassis which are excellent John Shand

And Snook is Roy Snook - first class in all ways but not yet as roller (his pressings have been used on a few original rebuilds)

Ian

Oops - meant to say Roy ...

I actually had the pleasure of meeting Roy and Chris Melia in person @ Pebble Beach
in 2003 for the Concourse D'Elegance.

Ian
 
OK, What do you guys think of Tornado? And be honest. I noticed they weren't on the list. I like CAV and RCR, but I may have to wait due to budget constraints for one of theirs. I could probably do a Tornado, though but I joined this list for input. Please be honest with me.
Thanks
 
Hi Mark

if you talk about originality in terms of chassis construction and dimension the above mentioned
Gelscoe
Snook
Mirage
Gox
are top line
than i would say its SPF, because there chassis is also a pressed steel sheets monocoque.
Than would follow ERA , RCR and evtly CAV. There Chassis are monocoques too, but the panels and material differ from the original . But they are real monocoque constructions ( although i´m not quite shure about CAV).
Tornado is a tubular steel frame construction panelled with alloy sheets. So very different from the original chassis concept.

If you talk about originallity in terms of performance it depends on the total spec of the car.
All of them probably perform very good, but one or the other would be more suitable for your needs.
RCR uses a fully heimjointed and in all terms adjustable suspension setup. which would allow a customer specific setup. All the other makes have this as well but most of them not to that extend.

If budget is limited ( and this is a relative term) a close original chassis is usually out of range ( calculated 150 t0 250 K USD for a finished car, depending all you sources for the other parts and your mechanical skills).

TOM
 
I think what I'm driving at is, which chassis is the closest to the original in appearance? Performance is relative to the individual. I'm quite sure most bodies are pretty much 90 something % close to the original in appearance or they wouldn't be called GT 40s. Interiors, I'm sure are close enough as with engines (providing you use a Ford 260, 289, 302, 351, 427, etc...). I was hoping to find a chassis that was as close in appearance to the original as I could so that when I do the build, I can model it after a particular GT40. Y'know, when I show it off and then open the engine lid, there's not going to be something that looks totally foreign to a '60s GT 40 in there. Now, if no one makes a chassis similar in appearance to the originals, then it probably doesn't matter which kit I use. From the outside, they all look like GT 40s an performancewise, I'd want the lightest anyway.
Am I rambling here?
 
I think what I'm driving at is, which chassis is the closest to the original in appearance? Performance is relative to the individual. I'm quite sure most bodies are pretty much 90 something % close to the original in appearance or they wouldn't be called GT 40s. Interiors, I'm sure are close enough as with engines (providing you use a Ford 260, 289, 302, 351, 427, etc...). I was hoping to find a chassis that was as close in appearance to the original as I could so that when I do the build, I can model it after a particular GT40. Y'know, when I show it off and then open the engine lid, there's not going to be something that looks totally foreign to a '60s GT 40 in there. Now, if no one makes a chassis similar in appearance to the originals, then it probably doesn't matter which kit I use. From the outside, they all look like GT 40s an performancewise, I'd want the lightest anyway.
Am I rambling here?

Again, the closest chassis are going to be monocoques, and the most accurate are Gelscoe,
Snook, Mirage, CCD (David Brown), Gox, and John Shand. These are all supposedly based
upon accurate drawings.

Then, SPF (same pressed steel mono, but with some deviations), ERA, and CAV. RCR
is a very significant departure from the original - both design of the mono and the
suspension. Again, we're talking appearances.

Then you get to the spaceframe cars in no particular order - Tornado, Roaring Forties,
Southern GT, Active Power/Classic Reproductions, GT40 Australia. These are spaceframes
with riveted panels, and as such will look different just by virtue of the rivets. Also,
while some will look closer to original when finished, others will differ.

So, the choice boils down to how accurate do you want it to look? Are you a stickler
for mono vs. spaceframe? Pressed steel roof vs. composite? If you want lightest, Tornado
is developing a carbon fiber mono - it won't look like the original since it isn't steel or
aluminum, but it will be very light. Tornado's spaceframe is also pretty light, but monos
in general usually have the advantage with respect to weight.

Ian
 

Keith

Moderator
Not rambling mate I think I know what you're after. BTW I love your Avatar! He was the man for sure and designed the Lotus 47 (Europa) for the very same exercise as the GT40, but Ford thought it too flimsy...but that was his way.

The GT40 replica market has come on so strong these last few years that there are so many excellent choices for you. Personally? I would go for a spaceframe for cost reasons and panel it (or have it panelled) so that there is not a lot of difference visually between a replica and an original. At this point, there will be a lot of members howling: " No no no - the differences are sooo obvious" but I'll tell you that I've seen originals in FAV Slough and recently saw some replicas in Marlow - all spaceframe: GTD's and Tornado, and with a quick glance I couldn't tell the bloody difference mate...

All the modern replicas are the bees knees and I wouldn't say no to ANY of them!

Good luck in your search. I'm sure my post will be followed by many experts who will point out all the salient differences to you and why kit A is better than kit B etc etc ad infinitum ad nauseum... :)

Please let us know what you decide to do. I would love to be in your position.... :thumbsup:
 
I think what I'm driving at is, which chassis is the closest to the original in appearance? Performance is relative to the individual. I'm quite sure most bodies are pretty much 90 something % close to the original in appearance or they wouldn't be called GT 40s. Interiors, I'm sure are close enough as with engines (providing you use a Ford 260, 289, 302, 351, 427, etc...). I was hoping to find a chassis that was as close in appearance to the original as I could so that when I do the build, I can model it after a particular GT40. Y'know, when I show it off and then open the engine lid, there's not going to be something that looks totally foreign to a '60s GT 40 in there. Now, if no one makes a chassis similar in appearance to the originals, then it probably doesn't matter which kit I use. From the outside, they all look like GT 40s an performancewise, I'd want the lightest anyway.
Am I rambling here?

Just a little, I would suggest you contact any of the list given above..gox, gelscoe, snook,mirage, & classic car developements. Cannot speak for any really, but wonder if Dave Brown @ Classic might consider a staged build for you... be aware that these are not 'kits' though, as Jimbo frequently states--- they dont come with all the parts & instructions............ in fact there appears to be several kits that suffer the same problem.:)
The other 'unknown' in the equation is your own abilities & or resources??? Bear in mind the comments you will read on this site, possibly one of the largest gatherings of keyboard critics on the planet, you need a thick hide & quick wit to match some of these wannabee's.:)
 

Jim Rosenthal

Supporter
If you want to DRIVE your car, you should get an SPF, or an ERA, or an RCR; as I've said before, you'll have plenty of sorting out time to make it yours, and you'll be up and running fairly quickly. The price of admission to that party isn't cheap, but you want to drive a GT40. They are not cheap cars.

If you want authenticity, it's sort of like the old saying: "Speed costs money. How fast do you want to go?"

The most authentic cars I have seen anything of are (in NO particular order, so don't anyone feel slighted, okay?: the Mirage cars being built in the UK, the David Brown/CCD cars built in NZ, the GOX cars (built in Scandinavia, I think) and the few photos I have seen of one Gelscoe car which is for sale, among other places on John Allen's web site. But the chassis is far from the only ingredient in an "authentic" car.

For example, take my car, GT40P-1149. (please) This is a David Brown chassis, completed by Henry Atherton, then completed and fitted with its body by Safir, who built the body. Virtually all the running gear is Safir- so my car has a number of updates that were peculiar to Safir cars. It has CV joints instead of Metalastik couplings and Cardan joints, it has identical uprights on the fron end from left to right, instead of the handed uprights originally used on Mark I and II cars, which were mirror images of each other, it has Wilwood brakes which I put in instead of Girling or Lockheed or AP brakes, and it has a ZF -2 transaxle instead of a -0. Although my car received a Safir serial number, because so much of it was done by their shop, it is really neither a Mark I nor a Mark V. All Mark V cars had the updates to the suspension worked out by Alan Mann Racing- but because my car was built to Mark I specs and dimensions by David Brown, who was working from original drawings, the Mark V suspension pieces made for my car did not fit, and they all had to be made over- to Mark I specs. But my car has Mark V uprights!! and so it goes...

My point in this dreary narrative is that "authenticity" has its price and its limits. Frankly I would rather drive a car with modern CV joints than what the Mark I cars had, and Wilwood brakes will stop the car just as well or better than AP 2271 brakes, for which I would have had to pay nine thousand dollars for four calipers. For that I could have had GW heads, and maybe for a little more GW heads AND a set of Webers to put on them. Or I could easily get the entire car painted in a finish totally too good for a street and rally car...so, unless you have unlimited funds, you pays your money and you takes your choice.

My suspicion is that if you want a monocoque car and not a tube frame car, you should buy one of the mono tub cars- an ERA, an RCR, or an SPF. I think they are all good cars and can be built into reliable and enjoyable street and track vehicles. Externally they are all quite faithful to what a GT40 ought to look like. They are ALL going to be more comfortable than 1149, which will not have any creature comforts such as a heater/defroster, functioning ventilation, sound deadening, etc. Wwe will have to work out and add some of those things later on. But if you want to drive a GT40, buy a roller from a good company. If you want to spend years building a dead-nuts original (and we have several intrepid folks on this forum who are doing exactly that) be my guest, but don't underestimate what you're getting yourself into. No matter how formidable you think the project is.......it's much bigger than you think.
 
"From the outside, they all look like GT 40s an performancewise, I'd want the lightest anyway."

Mark,

If you want the lightest replica, there is only one choice... a TS40.

My car, chassis #875, has most of our options and fully fueled it weighs in at 2120lbs.

I do not have our lightweight body option either.

All others weigh in several hundred pounds more.

This is the type of thing that only 20 years of continual production and development can accomplish.

Regards,
Scott
 
Last edited:

Randy V

Moderator-Admin
Staff member
Admin
Lifetime Supporter
Then, SPF (same pressed steel mono, but with some deviations), ERA, and CAV. RCR is a very significant departure from the original - both design of the mono and the suspension. Again, we're talking appearances.

"Appearances" yes.
Dimensions and geometry as well as basic design - I would say maybe...

The basic design of the RCR suspension components are essentially the same as those that I've seen in my books. Material is obviously different with the RCR having the distinction of extremely strong and light billet components.

In the handling department -
(With no particular focus placed on any particular chassis)
I think the mono chassis will be the victor over a space frame over the long haul. Why the long haul? Because I feel that the riveted panels of the space frame may loosen over time and lose some of their rigidity. (Note - all aircraft are monocoque design for a reason)
Also
* Lighter suspension components will have a side benefit of less unsprung weight.
* Stronger control arms and uprights will flex less.
* If the chassis will accept the inverted transaxle - the engine can be placed lower in the chassis (lower CG)

Just my $.02 worth...
 
Original quote;
I like CAV and RCR, but I may have to wait due to budget constraints for one of theirs. I could probably do a Tornado, though but I joined this list for input. Please be honest with me.


Why don't you wait until your budget allows you to build the car that you really want instead of jumping into something and downgrading your build. I could begin a build today, but I have decided to wait and build the car that I really want in reference to engine, options and the builder. I jumped into a car in the past without waiting and it bit me in the @$$.
 
I'd like to follow up with what I believe to be relevant to the question of authenticity. Does anyone here have an idea of how many cars/kits the above mentioned producers have delivered to customers as of today?

I am very interested to know this as I believe that producers, at least in theory, should be getting better for each kit being delivered as bugs are worked out in cooperation with the builders. It also means that producers have proven themselves able to deliver which should be one of the most important aspects to most builders.

Cars from SPF look very nice and close to the original cars. I have also seen ERA replicas that look great. The other mentioned brands I have never seen in real life. Any pictures of completed cars from them?
 
Gurn Wes,

My chassis is #875.

Tornado has been producing GT40 replicas for 20 years now, an average of over 43 kits per year.

Our cars have been continually upgraded/developed/refined over this period.

A small portion of completed TS40's can be viewed here;

Gallery Pictures

Cheers,
Scott
 

Jim Rosenthal

Supporter
All the manufacturers are relatively small-volume companies, with the exception of Superformance, who really are HiTech Automotive in South Africa- SPF is a trademark, as far as I know.

I think the things that count are the number of satisfied customers, longevity, and build quality. From what I can gather, ERA has been around a long time; so has Tornado. SPF is relatively new to the GT40 market, but they have been around a long time doing other cars and thir GT40 is the only one licensed by Safir GT40, who actually do own the licensing and numbering rights etc. RCR has a lot of happy customers as well.

What you REALLY should do is travel around and look at a lot of these...that would be fun and allows you to stretch out the buying phase. I can tell you this: if I were starting this now, instead of ten years ago, I'd have bought an SPF and pocketed the difference. Which would be a LOT of $$$, let me tell you.
 
Back
Top