I don't have a dog in this race but it is interesting. Not meant to be manufacturer specific, but these cars do replicate a certain year so "what is it?" is always the question and it is a 1966 gt40. "when was it made?" well it was built in 20xx. It is what it replicates but is built when it was built. That seems confusing as I type it out but I think that is how I feel about it and it seems accurate. I guess the "best" answer would be that "it is a replica of a 1966".
Is Wiki accurate?
- Thread starter MHNCO
- Start date
Seymour Snerd
Lifetime Supporter
Right. Nobody who matters is confused or thinks any of these things are made in '66. What a silly complaint.
I have a really nice reproduction of "The Girl with the Pearl Earring" in my living room. If someone asks me what it is I tell them "The Girl with the Pearl Earring by Vermeer". Not once has anyone asked if it's the original painted in 1665.
Last edited:
Seymour Snerd
Lifetime Supporter
I'm surprised someone hasn't corrected the web pages by now; seems like an unncessary legal risk for someone as sophisticated as Ford. Maybe our friends at Safir should send a cease-and-desist.....or offer to let them continue for a small sum.
BTW there's a, to my eyes, much more egregious wiki-booboo about the GT40 at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_FE_engine where 1/4 of the way down on the left is a picture of a CAV labelled "Factory Tunnelport crossram fuel injection used in GT40s". I do wish that would disappear, or at least the caption corrected.
Last edited:
Seymour Snerd
Lifetime Supporter
You're not alone. As you can see one of my little pets showed up right on cue.....growling at the same imaginary rodents. The little rat-catchers are amusing if for nothing than their persistence. Sadly though, having no apparent sense of humor, they spend a lot of their time barking about things that were just someone yanking their chains in the first place.
Last edited:
It's in all of the Pathfinder Youtube promotional videos ("1966 GT40"). Go to the Youtube site, search for Pathfinder Motorsports and you'll see the video description below inserted by Alan/Pathfinder.
It's a basic misrepresentation of fact about a product being sold in commercial activity. The Youtube videos are there for product promotion and business development, plain and simple.
If I'm the bad guy for pointing out this minor factual misrepresentation then so be it, I'm not bothered by it.
Last edited:
That's great Alan. I have an original Degas in my hallway, and I don't have to lie about its origin either. You should come over and have a look at it if you're an art fan.
Enough with this silly thread.
Last edited:
Pathfinder Motorsports
Sponsoring Vendor
You have once again gone out of your way to tell the readers on this board that Pathfinder Motorsports is engaged in lying, false advertising, and breaking the law. Why? Because we refer to our race-prepared continuation cars by the year they represent - and you don't like that.
As I explained previously, we market and build our cars to reflect the build-year that the owner intends to race their GT40. That's the way it's done in FIA and most European and Japanese vintage and historic racing. A 1965 GT40R continuation car must race under Period F, while a 1966 car races under Period G. Pretty simple, yet you're incapable of understanding that - and indeed go on to imply that Pathfinder is trying to sell continuation cars as authentic vintage '60's-era GT40s. Of course, that is absurd - and may rise to the level of libel and vilification. For someone who claims to be an attorney, Cliff, you have a remarkable deficit in reasoning ability let alone common sense.
So, turning the spotlight on you, Cliff, what do we find?
• Cliff Beer was previously banned from this website for his alleged duplicity;
• Cliff Beer has been accused on this board of employing false accounts to bolster his allegiance to CAV while taking shots at RCR and Superformance/Pathfinder;
• Cliff Beer has been accused of sending emails under false cover to members of GT40s.com in an attempt to intimidate them; and,
• Cliff Beer tracked down a video of Pathfinder's on YouTube and trashed it in the comments section claiming that we were fraudsters, all the while using a pseudonym that was later confirmed as belonging to him.
Perhaps most remarkably, Cliff, you act incensed that we would call one of our cars a '1966 GT40 continuation car by Superformance', yet you had to admit back in 2009 (over this exact issue) that you registered your personal GT40 as having been built in 1966! You subsequently lied about that on this very thread claiming, "my car is a 2006 CAV GT40. That's what it is, always will be, and nothing more or less than I have ever indicated in the past". Don't you realize that you can't run away from your record?
It hasn't been difficult to assemble an impressive number of additional quotes about you, written by fellow members on GT40s.com over the years. It doesn't paint a flattering picture, but more importantly, it speaks directly to your character and what is motivating what may already constitute calumny and libel. I don't know why or on who's behalf you may have started this vendetta, but it's about time you put it to rest.
Seymour Snerd
Lifetime Supporter
Ummm, Cliff, you missed the point, perhaps wilfully. No one who visits me is stupid enough to think it's the original, just like no one who has enough brains to pull together $150,000 is dumb enough to be misled by the year Pathfinder assigns to its cars. It's beyond me why you don't just say "yeah you're right" and be done with it. Just because a string of text can be forced into corresponding to some theory of law doesn't make it worth discussing.
You started this fire by repeating in this thread your trivial complaint, not only off-topic but also not worth posting elsewhere in the first place, and made it worse by calling Alan P "unpleasant." So I hope you really mean "enough with this silly thread" because you're the architect of the silliness and that would lend this unpleasant incident a nice sense of symmetry, it nothing else.
As a relative newbie to the GT40 world (anxiously awaiting delivery), it's so very odd to see the bickering among a group of people that all have one very narrow passion in common. I am an uninformed observer, I don't really know nor care who is right - mainly because an Internet forum is hardly the place to find 100% reliable facts and hardly a place convince others to change their strongly held positions. The result is merely a tarnish on the Superformance image which certainly does not help the value/resale of our cars. Take it from me, reading this stuff and similar in other posts does not endear one to the brand nor make one eager to jump in. A community of camaraderie, respectful and informative debate, interesting insight - that adds value to the mark. Fortunately my opinion of the brand derives from my first hand experience with a SPF Cobra, and not from this forum - although I do wonder what this does to my resale.
- LIONDOG
- LIONDOG
Seymour Snerd
Lifetime Supporter
I think if you're going to preach to us then you should be ready to have your words examined...
First of all the idea that sharing one narrow passion would prevent bickering is naive and unjustifiable. Furthermore, any significant experience with Internet forums should have taught you that idea doesn't work in practice. It also should have taught you not to be surprised. It comes with the territory.
The idea that some bickering on a forum is bad for the brand image is also sheer speculation on your part.
The assumption that all the bickerer's a) agree that resale is dimished or b) even care at all, is presumptuous on your part, and false to boot.
The assertion that the bickering does not endear others and/or discourages them from jumping in is also arrogant projection, and demonstrably false.
And again... resale... resale... resale. If you're that worried about the effect of someone else's interpersonal feud's effect on the value of your car, then you probably can't afford the car.
And finally, this forum is a place to find 100% reliable facts. They're lying around all over the place. You just have to learn how to recognize them, which derives mostly from learning whom to trust as reliable authors.
Just like with wikipedia.
So, now that we're back on the original topic, are there any other wikipedia articles on GT40 or related topics that are inaccurate?
Last edited:
(Moderator hat on)
Cliff, Alan and Alan. Please step away from the keyboard.
This is the "Superformance" forum area and as the moderator I am not pleased with the tone of these posts and ask that all consider this a "shot across the bow."
We WILL all play nice or there will be suspensions handed out.
Cliff, Alan and Alan. Please step away from the keyboard.
This is the "Superformance" forum area and as the moderator I am not pleased with the tone of these posts and ask that all consider this a "shot across the bow."
We WILL all play nice or there will be suspensions handed out.
Amen to that bit of common sense. Thank you.
Seymour Snerd
Lifetime Supporter
No need; my apologies to you for the lecture.
