How do you define a kit car?

When I owned my Kirkham, it would kind of rub me the wrong way when someone asked if it was a "kit car" I always thought of a kit car as having a lot o donor parts, like mustang suspension, engine, trans, etc. Where you could buy a used or wrecked car to build your car. The Kirkham and RCR cars with billet aluminum suspension, etc, always seemed more of a custom build, and $43K to $54K for a roller hardly seems like kit territory.
 

Malcolm

Supporter
If you buy your car as a big pile of bits and assemble it yourself then you are building a kit car from a kit of parts. You could try self assembled supercar? Or a hand built peice of art? But in a strict definition situation we build our cars with a kit of parts supplied to us in the same a way you assemble an airfix model. Just we paid more! I know what you mean though but at least the 70's are fading, as kits from back then really did not set up a good definition of kit car for us today.
 

Ian Anderson

Lifetime Supporter
I'd say any car that you have had to build / assemble yourself or pay to have it assembled

So a Westfield supplied in pieces would be a kit car - if it is factory assembled it is still a kit car - just you paid for it to be assembled by someone else. I'd base this on Westfield selling more kits than assembled cars

Now Caterham I believe sell more complete cars than kits so they are not classified as a kit car - that said both the Caterham and Westfield are clones of the Lotus 7

So Superformance - they do not supply predominantly turnkey cars? - I'd classify thm as a kit cat too -as I believe most are delivered minus engine and transmission i.e. not in a driving state.

RCR - Mainly kits
Tornado - Mainly Kits

etc.

Now Ford - yes you may need to reassemble the door trim that falls off but in general not considered a kit car :lipsrsealed:

Ian
 

Ron Earp

Admin
Al, in the US I think it is more to do with the registration process. If the manufacturer isn't going the full on US safety tests and so on then the owner generally has to go through a specialty car registration process a la home built kit cars. Hence, everything on this forum, except the original run of P numbered cars in the 60s, has more in common with a kit car than a production car (even low production numbers).

Hey, if it makes someone feel better to call our cars "kit cars" that is fine with me. I enjoy what I enjoy.
 
Hmmm, the term "kit car" rubs me up the wrong way too.
"Kit cars" always smack to me of those hideous duttons and other cheapo cr4p that was around in the 70's and 80's.
Replica is better, self assembly supercar is a mouthful (but seems to work for Ultima)
Custom built sounds better, after all that's what they are.
I guess it all boils down to performance. I've never seen the attraction in making an MR2 look like a ferarri but keeping the 4 pot engine (and sound) whereas cobras, GT40s, d-types etc have performance as good as or better than the original.
Simon
 
Caterham sold many "kits" as "component" cars. Sounds better to me than kit car, however, the connotation of "components" suggest one or mulitple "donors".
 

Doug S.

The protoplasm may be 72, but the spirit is 32!
Lifetime Supporter
I agree with most here, if you buy it as an assortment of parts that might result in an operational car, I'd call it a "kit car". Various kits are more or less complete than others, and there are many independent businesses out there who will assemble your assortment of parts, as well as add whatever parts are needed to turn it into a functional automobile, for a price.

What irks me more than "kit car" is "...is it real?". Whenever asked that question, I offer to start the car up and have it move under its own power if that will convince the questioning party that it is real. What they more often mean is "....is it an original". Once we get to that point, I laugh and imform the questioning party that the few remaining originals (I drive a 427 Cobra replica) are too valuable to be driven on the street, almost impossible to insure b/c of their rarity, and that in all likelihood my "replica" (yes, I do use that term) probably performs better than the originals due to technological advances during the time since the originals were being produced.

I prefer the term "custom assembled replica".......just my own opinion, though.

Doug
 

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
My registration tag says "self constructed vehicle" I too bridle at Kit car, to me it has connotations of poorly constructed fibre glass bodies attached to a Volkswagen chassis.
I see a lot of adds for "recreation's" in English car mags and that appeals to me as a handle.
What does get up my nose is when people ask "Is it a real one" my normal answer to that is "No I have hypnotised you and it is really a Yaris."
If you think about it every car built starts life as a collection of parts and body panels that are assembled on a production line, I guess they could all be called kits.
Having seen the standard of work on the build threads in this forum I'm sure the quality and standard of care in our hand build cars is much higher than those production line "kit cars".
 
Last edited:

Keith

Moderator
Now Caterham I believe sell more complete cars than kits so they are not classified as a kit car - that said both the Caterham and Westfield are clones of the Lotus 7


Ian

Ian, I agree with your definitions but would make the point that Caterhams are hardly clones of the Lotus 7, they ARE (were) the Lotus 7 and I don't believe that Westfield come close by comparison. I helped assemble a Lotus 7, from Caterham Cars back in the '70s, and at no time did we feel that it was a "kit" per ce, more of a complete car that was sold dismantled to save the purchase tax, so more of a tx avoidance scheme than a kit car.

But, unwittingly, they started a revolution, which is where we are today.

For info, I used to live 200yds from Caterham Cars in, er, Caterham!
 

RichardH

AKA The Mad Hat Man
I would argue that a "kit car" has, by definition to be available to buy as "a kit". A lot of our vehicles are not purchased that way, and therefore cannot be defined as such. If you source parts from various suppliers, no two cars are similar, and therefore the result cannot be a kit of parts.

I also prefer the term "replica"
 
Hi,

To me, a "kit car" is an amature buildable vehicle, ie. a car that can be built by a private individual, from a supplied kit of parts or a scratchbuild. the fact that some of these amature buildable vehicles are built by professionals on behalf of the amature private individual dosn't stop it being a "kit car". I've no problem with people refering to my RF as a kit car, because its exactly what it is!

Jerry
 

David Morton

Lifetime Supporter
I bought a GTD space frame and body shell out of Motoring News from a guy called Nick Pardoe from deepest Essex, the engine from a guy called Slugger in Phoenix,
gearbox from Fran, Wheels and uprights from John Wisher, Brakes direct from AP, loads of sheets of aluminium from Kerry Adams, Rod ends from Socal, hoses from Earls in Longbeach, exhaust from Leeds, leather form Trimmania in Reading - it goes on and on.
Was it a kit car - Not really.
Is it a replica - Not really. (I know -we've done this argument before !!)
So what is it. Its generally and genericly known as a GTD40 but by and large I don't really mind what the none -?40 people call it. Because they don't have one. I would have liked a steel mono but thats life.
 
Last edited:
I think if you buy the parts and "assemble" those parts into a car/plane or whatever it is a kit... If you manufacture the chassis/suspension and most or all the brackets and parts this is a "scratch built" car/plane whatever. I would call my car a scratch built GT40 replica but I would call my Midget Mustang a "kit plane" because I bought a kit and assembled it. I do get a chuckle out of people asking me several times what kit I used even after I have told them its a scratch built replica, some people walk away never realy understanding what I mean. I do not take any offence either way because almost everyone that looks at it loves it. I'm not sure what you would call an ERA,SPF,CAV or RCR that was built by the company as a turn key minus? I would think a limited production replica of a GT40!
Steve26
 

Keith

Moderator
It's not all bad news though....

What's the name of that car in the Knightrider TV series? What does that get called eh?

Was that just a bunch of parts once?
 
I think when a car looks say at least 70% (looks in and out) on a car which was produced before then you can call it a replica if its delivered in a kit or not because a builder can build a car in lets say the CAV factory or that same builder buys such car for himself at his home/garage same builder same parts same end result...

a Kit-car, where the name came from, is also a self built car but most of those cars look very different they come under that 70% or even looks on no car that ever came from a factory...some look that way on the outside lets say it looks like a Lamborghini or Ferrari but ist made on a Fiero basis or so, that's a Kit-car also buggy types you can see s kit-cars.

GTRene
 
I like what Jay Leno said when asked that question about a cobra replica he has. When it's boxes and parts it's a kit. When it's finished and on the road,it's a real car. I want what's in his garage!
Bill
 

Howard Jones

Supporter
He mister.....is that a KITCAR or the real thing?

Do you think you would be leaning on a 3 million dollar real thing with your fat ass and putting your grubby greasy fingers all over a piece of real history?

Or, hey mister can I sit in that KITCAR of yours as she tries to figure out how to open the door?

Sure...if I can feel those kit tits of yours as you stare at them with that Aqualung lear.
 
Back
Top