GT40 public attention

[Mike]

Would not apply to a Superformance or a Gelscoe to name just two.

Getting a Ford GT owner or ex owner to understand why most GT40s are not kit cars would require repeated explanations over and over eventually leading to you banging your head on the wall as they continued to insist that the 1075 kit car from the 60s had copied the real FGT Heritage paint scheme from 2006. If that doesn't make any sense then you now know what you're up against

 

[Mike]

Left Hand drive, engine and good finish will give you away.

To the observant maybe and lead to a meaningful conversation rather than the typical follow up question which is, does it have a 427?

 

[Keith]

Picky Corner: Well, strictly speaking, if it has a 427 then it is not a GT40 full stop. :shifty:

 

[Mike]

Well of course not which is why most conversations become uninteresting in short order. When they ask that I say nope! It's got a Hemi!

 

[Terry Oxandale]

Interesting conversation. So my question to the group (no, I've not got a '40 replica, kit, or continuation). I get the sense that "kit car" is a insulting term to most of the participants in this string; is that true? Granted, it rises above the character of the more common and cheaper "kit cars" of decades ago, but that doesn't change the definition of something that arrives in parts, and must be assembled, as a "kit".

I would guess that the common car guy, that has a working knowledge of the the GT40, probably considers the original batch ('60s) as "real", and everything after that as a replica in meeting the public interest in the car (regardless of the fairness of that perception or not). I'm guessing that is the source of the common question; "is it real".

 

[Darin C.]

I think tube frame vs non tube would a factor in considering as a kit car. Unless the original car was.

 

[Bill Musarra]

I think more, that these are component cars, that are replicas of the 60s. Even the originals are component cars. Many parts from many different sources. Looking at them, they are the same car but each is different from all the rest in one way or another. I can't think of another car that has so many variations for such a short lifespan.

Bill

 

[Jim Rosenthal]

Yes, and it's worth mentioning that ALL the chassis were actually built by someone else- like Abbey or Tennant etc. The interesting thing to me about the English car industry at the time was that so many components were made by specialty companies to whom the work was subbed out. Kind of like Pressed Steel making RR/Bentley bodies. It never occurred to me that RR didn't build their own coachwork, but there you go.

 

[Dr. Bob Woods]

To me a "kit car" takes a donor vehicle and puts a fiberglass body on it that is not a true replication of the original and doesn't really look like the original. The wheel base and track are probably not correct and it has the donor's engine, not the replicated engine.

When they say "is it real", I say yes it is real, but your question should have been "is it an original GT40". Then I say it is a few million short of being an original, it is a high fidelity replica.

-Bob Woods

 

[Scott Calabro]

LHD/CS definitely gives it away straight off.

But then again a C/F tubbed car with a Coyote will too!

It the conversation goes negative, I just remind them that I'm sure the one they have in their garage is nicer.

 

[JimmyMac]

Here is an opinion on this.

If the chassis didn't have a Slough post code on it then it is not "real".
A new car based on a monocoque chassis might be considered a replica, copy or fake dependant on the fabrication details and the parts list but nay, never the so-called "rebuild" nor a "re-construction" of an original.
The rest, made of tube and sheet are kit cars to me, extremely good though they are, will be neither be HiFi nor HD given that originals were plain old Mono.

Nomex on.

 

[Keith]

I'd go with that James. The perception (IMO) is driven by one major factor: Value.

Value to ego (pride of ownership) and value to bank balance. (Appreciating asset?). I've noticed a distinct split in perception on the latter matter between the USA and ROTW, where US owners will be concerned and in fact choose product based on potential resale values, and spend time and effort talking them up, whereas in the ROTW (ok, UK then) they are just either driven hard or abandoned for years :quirk:

Each individual car is what it is to the owner and to a potential 'market.' In the meantime, there is however, a fascinating dance to be performed in between the two extents, which keeps these pages full of fascinating dialogue.

 

[Neville]

speaking about attention, anybody going to Fall Festival at LimeRock with a gt40 to race or show on Sunday? thinking about taking my CAV up From Long Island, could be an interesting drive with no trailer!

 

[Larry L.]

Kit car will not apply to Superformance since the cars are delivery almost finish. Replica is more adequate.

I agree that "replica" is a far more appropriate term ('obvious from my previous post), but, 'real world' they still have to fall within the "kit car" legal classification in order to be sold here (U.S.), do they not? So, in that sense only they are "kit cars".

That said, unless the SPF was built with RHD, there'd really be no way it could pass muster as a "replica" regardless.

 

[Mike]

What are you taking about now Larry? What legal classification are you referring to and be specific? Cite your source. In no point of the process was my SPF ever deemed or referred to as a "kit car" except by knucklehead FGT owners who are just mad it gets far more attention than their old man cruisemobiles. Like I said, debating this with an ex-FGT owner is like pounding sand.

 

[Mike]

I'd go with that James. The perception (IMO) is driven by one major factor: Value.

Value to ego (pride of ownership) and value to bank balance. (Appreciating asset?). I've noticed a distinct split in perception on the latter matter between the USA and ROTW, where US owners will be concerned and in fact choose product based on potential resale values, and spend time and effort talking them up, whereas in the ROTW (ok, UK then) they are just either driven hard or abandoned for years :quirk:

Each individual car is what it is to the owner and to a potential 'market.' In the meantime, there is however, a fascinating dance to be performed in between the two extents, which keeps these pages full of fascinating dialogue.

So we in the US are more financially savvy? Amongst other things sure... ok

 

[Mike]

Here is an opinion on this.

If the chassis didn't have a Slough post code on it then it is not "real".
A new car based on a monocoque chassis might be considered a replica, copy or fake dependant on the fabrication details and the parts list but nay, never the so-called "rebuild" nor a "re-construction" of an original.

Nomex on.

So what's an original that has been wadded up and had a new tub constructed? Is it still real because you can rivet on the original vin tag?

 

[Keith]

So we in the US are more financially savvy? Amongst other things sure... ok

I would have said more accurately "driven by dollars."

It's not the same thing. Plenty of people in the USA are not financially 'savvy' including the entire US Administration it would seem. :lipsrsealed:

 

[Keith]

So what's an original that has been wadded up and had a new tub constructed? Is it still real because you can rivet on the original vin tag?

Its a 'genuine' continuation! :laugh:

 

[Velez]

Kit Cars for me is a vehicle you buy in a kit which contains all the parts minus the drive train and paint. The owner will finish the car himself or pay. The bad connotations of the kit car early era dune buggies and Valkyres (fiberfab) mounted on VW chassis. Call it a Replica or Kit Car is the only way most of us can afford a GT40 or a Cobra. So we have to live with this otherwise no dreams or no fantasy. You would always say I did it my way since each replica has it own personality.