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

[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.