|>
|> Proposed terminology:
|> Replica –     Built by the original manifacturer.
|>               (Often cars built to the specs of a model that has
|>               won a famous race, ex Frazer-Nash TT-replica,
|>               Morgan TT-replica and LeMans-replica)
|> Copy –        Car built by other manifacturer to look exacly like the original,
|>               including mechanics (there are some degres here, there might be
|>         some differences, a D-type with XJ6 engine is OK, but not
|>               Daytona with Jaguar V12). (example : Jaguar C- and D-types)
|> Look-a-likes -Cars made just to _look_ like some car, usually crude
|>               not-so-like glasfiber body on a VW Beetle.
|>

I think you are one generation out of phase here.  If a car is built by
the original manufacturer to original specs it is ORIGINAL not a replica!
It would simply be another example of the marque.

A replica would be built to the original specs by a DIFFERENT manufacturer.

Mike

 Jm> This is our first knock-off and I have an etiquette question:

 Jm> 1) This car turns a lot of heads.  I’m amazed how many people ask what
 Jm> car it is.  How should I reply? a) a 1952 MG-TD,  b) a knock-off of a
 Jm> 1952 MG-TD, or c) a 1969 Volkswagon with a pretty fiberglass body.  

        I’d just call it a VW.  As an owner of a clapped-out MGB that re-
        quires a ton of work to keep running, I hate to see the one guy in
        town who has a Chevette-powered TD knock-off covered with MG tags
        showing up at shows decked out with Octagon hats and shirts while
        proudly opening his thing’s hood where there is a Chevette motor with
        a MG tag proudly displayed on its oil filler cap!!!

        Whoops, the guy is not on my Christmas card list and let me leave it
        at that.  Hope this answers your question.

… Power corrupts.  Absolute power is kind of neat.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.11

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

>In article <2vffj7$…@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> geo…@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM writes:
>>I’ve never understood why people buy those things.  How can there be any
>>satisfaction in driving such a travesty?  Sure, some people will think
>>it’s actuall what it pretends to be, but *you* know the truth — and
>>what’s the fun in that?  It strikes me as ethically analogous to
>>winning at a game by cheating.

>Rubbish! How easy is it to get hold of an example of the real thing in good
>condition at an affordable price? Cobra replicas are a good example. The real
>thing is incredibly expensive. Replicas can look just as good, and be
>electrifying to drive.
>Probably not as good as the real thing, but much easier to get hold
>of. Some kit cars are crap, some are excellent. The fun isn’t just in owning
>a genuine car – whats the point in that? A genuine car that is crap to drive
>would be no fun. A replica car that is great to drive would be fun. There is
>also the fun of being able to build the car yourself.

>In answer to the original question – tell the truth. Say it is a replica of
>an MG-TD. If they want to know more, you can tell them what it was made from.

There is a mixup of terms here, a replica has to be built
by the original’s manifacturer.

Proposed terminology:
Replica –     Built by the original manifacturer.
              (Often cars built to the specs of a model that has
              won a famous race, ex Frazer-Nash TT-replica,
              Morgan TT-replica and LeMans-replica)
Copy –        Car built by other manifacturer to look exacly like the original,
              including mechanics (there are some degres here, there might be
              some differences, a D-type with XJ6 engine is OK, but not
              Daytona with Jaguar V12). (example : Jaguar C- and D-types)
Look-a-likes -Cars made just to _look_ like some car, usually crude
              not-so-like glasfiber body on a VW Beetle.

Try to use the word replica only in the right context.

To the original poster (mainly): Don’t ever try to lie about the orign of a car.

best regards
-Karl Hansell

: In article D…@isltd.insignia.com, to…@mellor.isltd.insignia.com (Anthony Shaughnessy) writes:
: >In article <2vffj7$…@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> geo…@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM writes:
:
[snip, snip, snip...]
: >

: There is a mixup of terms here, a replica has to be built
: by the original’s manifacturer.

no it doesn’t …according to the dictionary…….[It, repetition, fr.
replicare to repeat, L. to fold back] 1. a close reproduction or facsimile
esp. by the maker of the original; 2. COPY, DUPLICATE, see REPRODUCTION
(something reproduced)

"kit kars" (BTW I’m not nuts over "kit kars" – but if that’s what you want
_and_ enjoy, then by all means have, build one) ARE replicas – they are a
reproduction of the original as long as they are copies/duplicates of the car
once they are made to look different then they become modifieds

which makes the following unnecessary………B-)

: Proposed terminology:
: Replica –     Built by the original manifacturer.
:               (Often cars built to the specs of a model that has
:               won a famous race, ex Frazer-Nash TT-replica,
:               Morgan TT-replica and LeMans-replica)
: Copy –        Car built by other manifacturer to look exacly like the original,
:               including mechanics (there are some degres here, there might be
:             some differences, a D-type with XJ6 engine is OK, but not
:               Daytona with Jaguar V12). (example : Jaguar C- and D-types)
: Look-a-likes -Cars made just to _look_ like some car, usually crude
:               not-so-like glasfiber body on a VW Beetle.

: Try to use the word replica only in the right context.

: To the original poster (mainly): Don’t ever try to lie about the orign of a car.

better yet – rather than lie, tell only what you feel you have to…..
e.g., if its a good friend, thell them you always wanted a car you could
could have fun with, and that you’ve always thought it would be neat
to run around in one of these ever since you saw Cary Grant (or some one)
do it in a movie – what the hey, have fun with it and enjoy it – since it’s
not an original it won’t hurt as much if something happens to it (rather
like loosing a cz as opposed to loosing a diamond…..B-)) – and, if the
person isn’t a friend, say, I’ve always wanted to have one of these….

–
____________    __      ____________  "They that can give up essential
\_____     /   /_ \     \     _____/  liberty to obtain a little
 \_____    \____/  \____/    _____/  temporary safety deserve
  \_____                    _____/  neither liberty nor safety."
     \___________  ___________/          –Benjamin Franklin
               /    \           ALL disclaimers apply ….
               ~~~~~~               sha…@trusty.is.lmsc.lockheed.com

If you are a fanatic, then you won’t ever get satisfaction by driving
anything but the real thing.  But if you aren’t and you enjoy your car,
then do so without worrying whether or not some fanatic thinks you’re
trying to be like an owner of the "real thing."

Stefan

Joe,

What you tell them depends on a few factors:

1) Is the inquisitive one a female?- if so go to 4 (assuming your wife’s not around).
2) Are they likely to know what a real MG-TD looks like?
3) From experience, if you tell them its a replica you have to spend 10mins explaining what is means!!
4) Lie your pants off and take her for a spin!*&^!

                        Happy lying

                                        Dave.
————————————————————————————-

Q.   What’s the definition of a rubbish skip????

A.   An american car with the roof down!!!!

Yep, Todd’s right.  An air-cooled four under the boot.  I’m told the
performance of the car is similiar to the orginial and it’s great fun to
drive, but I’ve never been in a true 52 MG (been in several later models,
though).  I also agree the car can’t be considered a true replica.  Of
course, this begs the bigger question: who cares?

The car was my fathers and he sold it to me for about 1/4 the price of
similiar "replicas" I see in the car mags.  There’s really only one problem:
my wife is enjoying it more than I am.  Viola, it’s now her car (I shouldn’t
complain, the last new car we bought was predominantly mine to drive…)

Lately, I’ve been saying it’s a fiberglass replica of a 52 MG-TD built on a VW
chassis.  The answer doesn’t seem to diminish the enthusiasm of those I’ve
met.  The car itself is very nice.  I’ve been in a couple of other kit cars
and this has the fewest squeaks and groans of any I’ve seen.  Very solid and a
beautiful walnut dash.  Actually, many, many parts on the car *are* orginial
MG parts such as the bumpers, mirrors, and other fixtures.  Moss motors has
been very helpful in tracking down misc. parts.  The car is very light, and as
such has impressive acceleration.  Top speed is around 65 mph (I live at 7500′
altitude and this accounts for considerable power loss in most cars).

Hoping for a sunny summer….

Take a car like the Ferrari Testarossa: you can build a high-quality kit
car based on this body style, with a V8 GM or Ford Engine, quality tranny
and suspension, and an all leather interior, for under $30,000 — and that’s
if you don’t build it yourself.  I don’t even need to get into the
satisfaction that comes with building a car yourself — it is a piece of
work that you can be extremely proud of.  And with the spare $220,000 that I
have left over after building my kit, I can still afford to eat.

The argument for building a kit car of something like an MG is a little less
clear, but there are certain advantages to a kit car.  The MG is a wonderful
little car, but the English have never been known for their reliablity when
it comes to carbuilding.  If you want to use a car as a daily commuter, it
ought to have a reliable engine.  MG’s are also prone to body rust, all but
eliminated with a fiberglass body.  And if you’re like I am — 6’2", you just
don’t fit into a standard MG — imagine building one big enough to fit into.

If you don’t have the desire to build a kit car, you never will.  But if you’ve
got the bug, they bring great satisfaction.  And my car will turn more heads
than your Honda Civic any day, even if it is a travesty.

– Matt
   mclem…@access.digex.net

: Rubbish! How easy is it to get hold of an example of the real thing in good
: condition at an affordable price? Cobra replicas are a good example. The real
: thing is incredibly expensive. Replicas can look just as good, and be
: electrifying to drive.
: Probably not as good as the real thing, but much easier to get hold
: of. Some kit cars are crap, some are excellent. The fun isn’t just in owning
: a genuine car – whats the point in that? A genuine car that is crap to drive
: would be no fun. A replica car that is great to drive would be fun. There is
: also the fun of being able to build the car yourself.

Yes, but…

: In answer to the original question – tell the truth. Say it is a replica of
: an MG-TD. If they want to know more, you can tell them what it was made from.

…it’s not even a replica.  The original poster can, of course, correct
me, but it sounds as though his car has an air-cooled flat four mounted
in the rear and VW suspension bits all around.  For those unaware, the
_real_ ’52 TD has a water-cooled four up front and a solid axle driving
the rear wheels.

–

-todd
t…@mudbug.nrlssc.navy.mil

’74 MGB               99K mi
’84 VW Rabbit Diesel 176K mi (broken timing belt; immobile)
’84 Volvo 245GL      173K mi
’85 Nishiki Prestige custom  (not ridden these days; make an offer)

"People said it because other people said it.  They did not know why it
was being said and heard everywhere.  They did not give or ask for
reasons."
                      – Ayn Rand, from _Atlas Shrugged_

>: I’ve never understood why people buy those things.  How can there be any
>: satisfaction in driving such a travesty?  Sure, some people will think
>: it’s actuall what it pretends to be, but *you* know the truth — and
>: what’s the fun in that?  It strikes me as ethically analogous to
>: winning at a game by cheating.

to…@mellor.isltd.insignia.com (Anthony Shaughnessy) responds:

> Rubbish! How easy is it to get hold of an example of the real thing
> in good condition at an affordable price?

What’s that got to do with the point I raised above?  The fact that a
given car is difficult to obtain doesn’t in itself make owning a
replica any more defensible.  Assuming, of course, that it’s  
desired as an image builder or a fashion accessory, for the
satisfaction of having others think it’s the genuine article, and
not for any inherent desirability it may have on its own.

> Cobra replicas are a good example. The real thing is incredibly
> expensive. Replicas can look just as good, and be electrifying
> to drive.

That’s great, as far as it goes, because those are intrinsic qualities
of those vehicles (and to varying degrees, according to what I’ve read).
But they shouldn’t be passed off as the real thing by their owners, and
I have a real hard time understanding what possible satsfaction a
person could get from the mistaken impression of others that he’s
driving something he’s not.

> A replica car that is great to drive would be fun. There is also the
> fun of being able to build the car yourself.

On that we agree.  Personally, I’ve always rather liked that Porsche
Speedster replica because it looks like it’d be a fun car to own and
drive.  But if I had one, I wouldn’t fit it out with Porsche badges
and hubcaps or otherwise attempt to pass it off as a real Speedster,
because it wouldn’t be.  What it would be is an attractive roadster
with the heart of a Volkswagen.

Geoff

-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Geoff Miller                    + + + + + + + +        Sun Microsystems
geo…@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM    + + + + + + + +     Menlo Park, California
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-