I am sorry guys, but the arguments over what constitutes are real car (GT40) have extreme merit and deserve careful consideration. In my opinion mincing words over what is a replica or not is getting to the point of being rediculous. When the term replica or facimile is used, again IMHO, it is refering ONLY to the visible shape and LOOK. It does not imply in any way that the car is indeed a copy mechanically. If you look up these words you will invariably find the word "graphics" or "graphical" associated with the explanation which implies that replica implies a visual copy.
If one is going to extend the description of replica to mean an exact copy in every detail, both internal and external, then as what, pray tell, are you going to refer to cars like the RF, GTD, Tornado, ERA and many others that look like the cars that were produced by FAV? I refuse to reference these to an "original" GT40. Because none of the "original" GT40s were exact copies of each other in look or internally. So, which chassis number are you going to use as your yard stick in determining what is called a replica? So, then by inference it is the only true example and the others can't even be called replicas because they are not exact copies of this one. (This is what floors me when I see comments about placement of mirrors and the like saying "it is not as original." What total BS! None of them looked alike anyway down to how many rivets were used in mounting windows and covers- they are all a bit different in some ways!) "Looks like a MK I from a distance" I challange you to tell me what a Mk I looks like in absolute terms! Which Mk I? Again, there is no absolute standard! These were racing cars for crying out loud. To apply dogmatic standard is pure foolishness to me and obviously piques me a bit. If one wants to hold themselves to these standards, by all means - drive yourself to distraction if that is what turns you on, but don't try to put your unrealistic qualifications on everyone else.
Bottom line: give me f---ing break! If it is very close to the original shape and proportions, it is a REPLICA. A T-3 is NOT A REPLICA, a LASER 917 is NOT A REPLICA, the 917 made in Australia (name elludes me at the moment) IS A REPLICA, the RF IS A REPLICA. REPLICA only refers to the outward appearance in my book.
Lynn