Why does every thread here devolve into a "Real" vs. "Replica" argument?

[ERANJ]

May have to fact check this....is that any different than Chrysler going bankrupt being acquired by Fiat (not sure how the stock changed?) and essentially Chrylser corperation become a new company. So, the original company (CJD) no longer makes the Dodge Challenger replicas?

And the Challengers built using different materials (since the 1970s) by a different company (original Dodge) in a different era and delivered to the consumer in a considerably different fashion is a REPLICA Challenger. Both come with MSO form Dodge/Camaro and Shelby.

Only one that would hold true is Ford with Shelby Mustang GT350/500 or GT40 for that matter.

[twobjshelbys]

Originally Posted by ERANJ

May have to fact check this....is that any different than Chrysler going bankrupt being acquired by Fiat (not sure how the stock changed?) and essentially Chrylser corperation become a new company. So, the original company (CJD) no longer makes the Dodge Challenger replicas?

And the Challengers built using different materials (since the 1970s) by a different company (original Dodge) in a different era and delivered to the consumer in a considerably different fashion is a REPLICA Challenger. Both come with MSO form Dodge/Camaro and Shelby.

Only one that would hold true is Ford with Shelby Mustang GT350/500 or GT40 for that matter.

Jaguar is in the process of building 6 brand spanking new 1964 e-type lightweight cars. Jaguar refers to them as continuation cars. Each will be built to the specificaion of the last Lightweight E-Type delivered in 1964. (Note this statement from the press release makes no mention of "new old stock" parts, these are NEW vehicles using NEW recreation parts.) The cars will carry the unused Lightweight E-type chassis numbers.

Now, because Ford owned Jaguar, does that really make these cars just lowly Fords? How dare they try to deceive the public, for $1M+ each, on these lowly "replicas".

Go ahead, please go to the Jaguar forums and try to make the same arguments you are making here and see how long they will last. Good luck.

[mullen2]

Jaguar Brings the 1964 E-Type Racer Back to Life - WSJ

Love the E-Type! Follow the above link and watch it being built. I would bet the 6 New cars are better built than the originals. Man would I like to get my hands on one of them.

[twobjshelbys]

Originally Posted by mullen2

Jaguar Brings the 1964 E-Type Racer Back to Life - WSJ

Love the E-Type! Follow the above link and watch it being built. I would bet the 6 New cars are better built than the originals. Man would I like to get my hands on one of them.

I love them. I love the looks - lines, shape everything.

But if I were to drop $1M on a car (and that is what Jaguar says, and I'm sure they've all been sold, but I doubt they are only $1M) it would be for a untouched 300SL Gullwing. Another "coulda-woulda-shoulda" event.

P.S. The first comment on the article is from an original E-type (but not LWE, I think) owner in Colorado that DRIVES HIS!!!

[NewYorkGuy]

delete

[NewYorkGuy]

Originally Posted by mullen2

Jaguar Brings the 1964 E-Type Racer Back to Life - WSJ

Love the E-Type! Follow the above link and watch it being built. I would bet the 6 New cars are better built than the originals. Man would I like to get my hands on one of them.

there was a CC member (now banned from site) who put a down payment on one of these jags..

[jhv48]

I was visiting the sacc forum a while ago and none of those guys seem to have any problem referring to their cars as replicas nor do they consider their cars to be originals.

Guess it's just Evan.

[ERANJ]

Originally Posted by jhv48

I was visiting the sacc forum a while ago and none of those guys seem to have any problem referring to their cars as replicas not do they consider their cars to be originals.

Guess it's just Evan.

So the point being what..... that Evan is incorrect because what???????

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by jhv48

I was visiting the sacc forum a while ago and none of those guys seem to have any problem referring to their cars as replicas nor do they consider their cars to be originals.

Guess it's just Evan.

Evan would be shredded by the members of the SAAC Forum, if he claimed his car was a genuine Shelby Cobra.

[REAL 1]

Originally Posted by RodKnock

Evan would be shredded by the members of the SAAC Forum, if he claimed his car was a genuine Shelby Cobra.

I'm over there all the time. I've got 0 problems with those guys. Disappointed? Yeah, the owners of the originals have an issue but candidly they can kiss my arse. Most continuation owners see it as I do.
Even if they didn't couldn't care less either. Facts is facts. Parts is parts.

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by mullen2

Jaguar Brings the 1964 E-Type Racer Back to Life - WSJ

Love the E-Type! Follow the above link and watch it being built. I would bet the 6 New cars are better built than the originals. Man would I like to get my hands on one of them.

Beautiful car and I've always loved them, but they're not original and therefore replicas. Replicas built by Jaguar.

[twobjshelbys]

Originally Posted by RodKnock

Beautiful car and I've always loved them, but they're not original and therefore replicas. Replicas built by Jaguar.

You are welcome to that opinion but I'm sure if you said that to one of those owners you would be excused from the meeting. The MSO from Jaguar will state otherwise. I'll bet your opinion would just break the heart of one of those 6 lucky people and make them turn into a babbling bowl of jelly and cause the to fall on a sword.

[REAL 1]

Originally Posted by twobjshelbys

You are welcome to that opinion but I'm sure if you said that to one of those owners you would be excused from the meeting. The MSO from Jaguar will state otherwise. I'll bet your opinion would just break the heart of one of those 6 lucky people and make them turn into a babbling bowl of jelly and cause the to fall on a sword.

Gee thats funny. I don't think he would be too welcome at a meeting of Continuation Cobra owners either. Hmmm.

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by twobjshelbys

You are welcome to that opinion but I'm sure if you said that to one of those owners you would be excused from the meeting. The MSO from Jaguar will state otherwise. I'll bet your opinion would just break the heart of one of those 6 lucky people and make them turn into a babbling bowl of jelly and cause the to fall on a sword.

I would tell them that if you build something that approximates another something which was built 50 years earlier, then you're building a replica. If it's not original, then it's a replica.

The MSO isn't considered logic. Look at Shelby replica MSO's, they state 1965 and Ned has already said that's fraudulent, since they weren't built in 1965.

Logic says not original.

[twobjshelbys]

Originally Posted by RodKnock

I would tell them that if you build something that approximates another something which was built 50 years earlier, then you're building a replica. If it's not original, then it's a replica.

The MSO isn't considered logic. Look at Shelby replica MSO's, they state 1965 and Ned has already said that's fraudulent, since they weren't built in 1965.

Logic says not original.

The word is continuation. Repeat after me con-tin-u-a-shun

How is that fradulent? Quote me chapter and verse and make a charge in any ( federal, district,state or even small claims) court. Come on ned. And rod. Put up or shut up. No 10 word discussion response here show me a specific section of the us code that is being violated. Note such a claim would also have to apply to the superformance gt40 continuations among others. Where is the charge? Surely the fbi wouldn't let such fraud continue unchecked.

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by ERANJ

May have to fact check this....is that any different than Chrysler going bankrupt being acquired by Fiat (not sure how the stock changed?) and essentially Chrylser corperation become a new company. So, the original company (CJD) no longer makes the Dodge Challenger replicas?

And the Challengers built using different materials (since the 1970s) by a different company (original Dodge) in a different era and delivered to the consumer in a considerably different fashion is a REPLICA Challenger. Both come with MSO form Dodge/Camaro and Shelby.

Only one that would hold true is Ford with Shelby Mustang GT350/500 or GT40 for that matter.

First, you need to check back about 10-20 pages for the Dodge Challenger Analogy. AFAIK, there aren't any companies making replicas of the 1970 Dodge Challenger. So, it's a hypothetical. If Dodge, Fiat or Ferrari wanted to make a replica of a 1970 Dodge Challenger, then it would be replica. Not only would the company be different, the materials used would be different, the car would NOT meet Federal safety and emission standards and couldn't be sold as a complete with registration and warranty. It's 45 years after the original and would be a kit car. Just like the Shelby Cobra replica.

[ERANJ]

Originally Posted by RodKnock

First, you need to check back about 10-20 pages for the Dodge Challenger Analogy. AFAIK, there aren't any companies making replicas of the 1970 Dodge Challenger. So, it's a hypothetical. If Dodge, Fiat or Ferrari wanted to make a replica of a 1970 Dodge Challenger, then it would be replica. Not only would the company be different, the materials used would be different, the car would NOT meet Federal safety and emission standards and couldn't be sold as a complete with registration and warranty. It's 45 years after the original and would be a kit car. Just like the Shelby Cobra replica.

I had not looked at the earlier post on the Challenger analogy but was looking at the parallels. As a hypothetical, if Dodge manufactured the chassis in 2015 (original manfactures, components, etc., is not relevant) and for argument sake offered the rolling car without the engine because they offered an OTC 426 Hemi for the customer to install it would be a kit or replica? I'm not disputing the warrantee, etc. but don't see how you can call it a replica based on the emission requirements. Who dictates that as a replica even more so with the MSO, Challenger VIN sequence? Based on your logic I see the Challenger and Shelby as geniune, authentic, whatever term you make like to state but not a replica. It's a product that was made by the manufacturer.

[fordracing65]

Originally Posted by ERANJ

I had not looked at the earlier post on the Challenger analogy but was looking at the parallels. As a hypothetical, if Dodge manufactured the chassis in 2015 (original manfactures, components, etc., is not relevant) and for argument sake offered the rolling car without the engine because they offered an OTC 426 Hemi for the customer to install it would be a kit or replica? I'm not disputing the warrantee, etc. but don't see how you can call it a replica based on the emission requirements. Who dictates that as a replica even more so with the MSO, Challenger VIN sequence? Based on your logic I see the Challenger and Shelby as geniune, authentic, whatever term you make like to state but not a replica. It's a product that was made by the manufacturer.

All new Shelby's come from either Kirkham, Hi-Tech, or HST, only, so its not a product made by the manufacturer...not from ford not from Shelby not from ac...

[ERANJ]

Originally Posted by fordracing65

All new Shelby's come from either Kirkham, Hi-Tech, or HST, only, so its not a product made by the manufacturer...not from ford not from Shelby not from ac...

Not all manufacturers make every component of a car. I would assume a large majority of the body components are outsourced. A.O. Smith for example, made the body for Corvette and I'm sure bodies are made today by other manfacturers for auto manufacturers. Who made the body is irrelavent to and does not define it as a replica.

[ERANJ]

Take care guys getting late here and have to earn a living tomorrow. Enjoyed the discussion.