Why
I likely know far less than everyone on this whole forum. However, I do know some things though, or sincerely believe I do.
Superformance is a separate LLC, or Corporation that is owned by one individual. No one from the manufacturing plant owns a financial interest in SPF. High-Tech(sp) Automotive is another separate legal entity, outside the U.S., and is owned by another different individual. No one from SPF owns a financial interest in that company.
These two companies exchange commerce: one manufactures cars, and the other imports them into the U.S. Since each of them have huge sums of money invested in their companies, and the operations of those two separate companies are the source of their income, they both have the common interest and desire to make a decent product with a market balanced cost/value factor, to avoid litigation, and to evolve their product and services to the best of their abilities, and strive to assure their companies continue in perpetuity. Anyone armed with any FACTS and proof, rather than merely personal opinions, assumptions, and speculations that can prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the above statements are incorrect, this is your time to shine.
SPF may be able to suggest and thereby influence some aspects of the product made by the manufacturer, but not to the extent that some here either understand, or perhaps believe. If there were one other more capable manufacturer or more, somewhere in the world, then competition would, by natural market selection, most likely result in a better product for a given target end-user price. But there’s no guarantee it would because even when there is a desire, there are numerous factors that can compromise the best of intentions: employee morale, employee skills, labor costs, material costs, government regulations, faulty vendor parts, etc. When worldly circumstances are such that there is currently no other viable, capable manufacturer, the lack of competition oft tends to slow product evolution.
The subject GT40s are made with a high degree of emphasis of being as close to the originals as reasonably possible, and some suggest that they are more successful than other similar carmakers are. If the originals did not possess weather/water-tight seals, then should the continuation cars have them? If the continuation cars are made with them, would there be a problem with one of the motor vehicle departments within any of the 50-states that would nit-pick that and say then that the car body, chassis, and features that are supposed to be exactly like the original. This may be more likely when car owners desire to register their car according to the like-kind of car, rather than to its engine, and this could cause registration problems, maybe in California? Anyone who can provide irrefutable proof, and not just a guess, that the above circumstances are not possible; this is your moment and opportunity. Anyone with proof positive that SPF didn’t request weather seals on one or more occasions, but was turned down, here’s another opportunity to show the cards.
Can we just learn from all that was written and known concerning the circumstance that was never hidden and has existed for the past 20-years, that SPF cars do not have such weather seals, and just factor that into our buying decision, and get on with our lives. Or, shall we continue to expend good energy obsessing. Why!
I have heard many statements concerning how some performance shops are experts in receiving and prepping the SPF cars. The car owners espoused how many fine details, fixes or adjustments were made. Strangely though, the same people discover subsequently that their pedals were installed wrong, and mention other important problems too. Is it not the engine and trans installer's job to connect the pedals, adjust the pedals, and to discover pedal problems, or is this also Lance’s, or SPF’s cruel negligence! Of course not!
A great deal of the numerous accusations contained in many of the above posts should have been directed to the appropriate company: carmaker, car seller, and engine/trans and car prep company. To act otherwise is reckless, negligent, and harmful to all the entrepreneurs, and extremely unfair to would-be purchasers.
I would rather see all of this negative energy directed back to helping all to understand what problems to look for, to provide helpful information on how to correct the problem properly, and to supply contact resources of service providers for those not capable of discovering or correcting problems themselves.
Onward! Robert
