Ford GT Mk.IV "continuation car" at RM Scottsdale

Bitzman,

These cars are being allowed to run more frequently due to many of the high end cars becoming static pieces and no longer making any appearances at the vintage events.

 

Firstly Its not a replica or a kit car, its a recreation. That means its the same as the car built in the 60s. I think some of these Mk4 recreation even ran at the vintage lemans historcs, and there are a few about.

Goodwood is considered the premier vintage event, yet a fair number of Mk1 GT40s runnign there were gelecoe built cars, in fact how many "orgional" Mk1 Gt40s have been retubbed and have new glass?

So what is origional, how much needs to survive, because the current standard appears is a chassis plate, or new uncointested chassis plate and car.

One can try and maintain this snobbery of "provenance" in vintage racing till the fleet is thinned to no cars running, and those few that "survive" are nothing more than GWs axe OR

One can reckognise as they have in europe and at the FIA that cars are machines, and machines can be "recreated/replicated" indefintly to exact/acceptable period spec. You can buy a brownigng hi power from the 30s or one now.

Yes an older "period build" car with period racing history is and should be worth more, it shoudl also probably be in a meuseum for posterity and or used in a very limyed manner, not getting repeatedly destroyed on the track.

I undertand that in the 70's some dedicated people wanted to keep old race cars running, for the joy and experience of driving them and putting on a show, this si the birth of historic racing. It has also morphed into a billionaire fest of esaclating asett value.

Now there is a much better option to destroying old cars, and or pricing them so they dont really run, and new builds can really be driven in anger without fear of damaging or destroying a historic artifact.

I maintain that if you are into the drive and experience the exact year your 1960s race car was built is irrelevant, wella newer build can be driven garder. Look at Lenos opnions on how he can use his pur sang bugatti as opposed to a "real" old one.

In any event its a fact that more and more recreation's are accepted into historic events, without recreations at this point thetre woudl be very few historic events and those woudl be mostly a prade laps. Thats before we get intot he whole subject of new builds with epriod chassis plates.

The FIA reckognises cars built to period spec, as opposed to period build, in Europe where they actuyaly race and use these machines in anger this is the way to go.

A number of historics in the USa also now reckognise recreations, betetr to have some GT40s on track fort he show than none.

As to authenticity of provenance. Yes there is an arguement that if a company owns a type certificate copying their car is an unauthorised theft, even if design patents are expired.

But this is a grey area too. A superformance GT40 is licnesed by the type holders, they have true continuation chasis numbers, but would not meet the letter of the law as to FIA standards due to brakes, the materials used int he uprights, and a s lightly stronger chasis, yet they are licnesed. Gelescoe does meet every criteria and run at Goodwood. BTW superformance has a very robust buisness making repacement tubs for "origional" cars.

We have pur sang bugattis.

We have the aston sanction 2 DB4 zagatos which were actualy built by RS williams, but asnctioned by aston, and we have the new etype lighweights, sanctioned by Jag.

So if a Gt40 or Chevron is licensed by the type holder is that OK?
Are, cars santioned by the typeholders(if they exist) acceptable if meeting FIA period build standards?, or is one essentialy opposed to new old cars? In which case the new etypes should not be ok nor should the sanction 2 zgatos or even a number of historic race cars being just recreations with uncontested chassis plates(is tha not dishonest)

As you can tell I think recreations are great, and no recreation is cheap or a kit car with replica style body, they will nevver be mass produced items and they allow many more peopel to experience these machines race them, and spectators to see them driven in anger for years decades if not centuries to come.

As a Bugattista told me, what makes a type 35 bugatti is not where or when it was built, but rather how it was built and the materials used. Same with wooden boat people, yes the market rewards period builds autheticity and provenance as it should, its different $$$ values not essentialy diffferent machines.

In other words is the essence of the machine what it is as a contruct, or when it was built. I get that the seat Nuvolari sat in has value and history, but on the trcak in anger is it relevant?

If you argue its all about when it was built in reality a very high percentage of "authentic" race cars are really at this point bitsas of contempoprary pices, how could it be any different after decades on the track.

Or are you argueing that a "replica" GT40 with a "period" chassis plate is really worth 11 million, I am talking baout he old camera car that had its roof cut off for the filming of the movie Lemans and then burnt to the ground only to be "restored" a few years ago and sold at acution. What exactly do you think survived from the 60s.

So yes old period builds, or those claiming epriod builds attach a period story to their build and attract seriously added value, because like anyhting coveted by wealthy people they are "rare" and their are few about. Anything period build has somethign a "history" that cannot legitamtly be recreated, this adds awe value and desire, but does it exclude the same exact machine but new build from legitimacy, the essence oif the machine is where the legitimacy starts for the driver, the history is where the value starts for someone else, the two can coexist, and to save one, the otehr should be allowed to run on track, as it is in many countries with at ;leasta s much "legitimacy" to historic automobiles as the USA..

Two different cultures which should exist side by side as in theory they like the same thing, cars oin motion and the experince of them. the difference is some cars have a historic movie we can imagine when viewing them even staticaly because x sat in that seat(not really the seat was replaced many times).

One thing replica or recreation racing needs in the USA is a set of standards, otherwise it can degenrate into modern cars with period style bodies.

Many would rather have standards than a free for all, and would rather expand than limit the hobby, and would rather preserve the period builds or see them running in fast parade laps to preserve whatever is left of them.

The historic provenance thing and chassis plate provenace is so out of control that a period ferrari can am car was turned into recreated a p4 for more value. The unwritten rules destroyed a period artifact because chassis plates are so coveted. These unwirtten rules are made by dealers who hype for value, not enthiusiasts. Wea re letting soem deal;ers dictate.

Yet I also know one dealer who raced all these greats in the begiing of the historic movement, and owned many of the now "famlus cars" who happily drives and sells recreations. In his words its the "same thing" and he still owns soem origional builds.

But yes some dealers would rather have a very limit stock of ever escalting in value historc cars as would some owners more interested in "investment" and this si drivign things.

Yet even then, have shelby cobra prices been held back, or did they become more popular because more peopele saw them, putting period builts at the top of a pantheon of cobras, and do we really care about some hedge fund managers car "investment" being able to double every few years..

fact is you see recreations about more and more, in many instances built by the orig type holders because its an emerging trend and market, unstopable and really great for the hobby, particularily the driving and racing part, while also allowing theose few surviving old builds to retire gracefully, like an old race horse being put out to stud..

 

If it was sold as a recreation and the new owner thought it was worth it then no problem.

But to me its like a lab created diamond. Same pure exact thing but not 60 million years old. Made yesterday and not an original. One your lucky enough to dig out of the ground. The other made on demand.

 

But a lad diamond is still crystalised carbon.

The difference is Diamonds have limited physical uutility(they are staic like art) and are used as a display of comitement and or wealth and status particularuly amongs women. To the extent a car is used to display wealth and status then yes a recreation will convey a false message, Its true that many "collectors" primarily own cars to display and or store wealth.


But for those who view a car as utility and recreation, then a recreation provides all the use of an old build but at an entry price that allows guilt free(you are not destroying an artifact or riskign net worth) enjoyment of that utility. These cars being recreated were not built or sold to doispaly wealth, they were built to drive and win races, in thta snese unlike diamonds, cars recreated do exactkyw hat the origionals did.

Yes a fake painting masquerading as the real thing is nothing other than a fake. But an accurate poster of the real thing allows one to enjoy the intrinsic beauty of the art without going to a meuseum. A CD allows one to enjoy a concert without traveling around the world or back in time to hear say the beatles.

A car is by defimntion man made series production item, pretty much every one was built in mass, inherrantly replicated in period.
A lab grown diamond, does not come from nature as do naturals.

Of course these days there is no such thing as natural pearls, but avibrant pearl industry with products enjoyed by the many not the few.

 

The difference is the lab diamond is only worth a fraction of the real thing. Same in this case.

 

I know the car...it is a serious machine and NEVER to be confued w/ a kit car.

as a note, Kenny thompson is building a few more of the mk IV's. Kenny was a lead fabricator on the originals and his cars will be completely tool room correct. they are not cheap however.

pcb

 

I have seen some pictures of his cars on the GT40's site. There are no corners being cut on those cars. The only difference between those cars and the originals is the date built.

 

Mines in build now. Def not cheap, but imo for driving pleasure also way better than some paddly shifty thing you only sort of drive alongside the computer, and eminently trackable.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

WOW!! I drove a SPF GT40 a few years back and while no exact tool room copy, it was an absolute blast. In terms of purity, it and the Exige are stand outs IMHO.

 

Sean, what are you building a MK1 or MK2? I have always thought that the GT40 chassis is a work of art.

 

Yep it misses being a tool room copy because brakes are a bit bigger, different calipers the uprights are aluminum as opposed to magnesium and the chasis is the stronger Mk2 version. But all in all really the same tub, properly built with rivested panels over a series of ribs just like orig and same suspesion and geometry.

The motor while is a 302 block as opposed to a 289 and modern tech means 575 relaible hp instead of a 289 grenade block maybe pushing 425 in final 60s spec.

Many an 'origional' GT40 runs a repacement SPF tub, and of course their motors put out way more than period spec. I suppose some switches and isntruments are not exact, bt close in look.

Transaxle is the same zf, its even RHD

For what its worth. the type certificate holders issue continuation chasis numbers.


So its as closer to an 'origional' than a kirkham is to a cobra., and to drive, well its the same as an origional according to those who know.

Happy to hear its similar to an exige, I have been tracking an elise for the past 3 years, and my hope is this will be similar (light, pure, good suspesion dynamics) but with more go.

 

Its a MK1, but the spf tub for all cars is a mk2 which is essentialy reinforced to be stiffer stronger and less prone to twist and breaking as the early 60s Mk1 tub, so maybe more like the mirage tub.

Project has been two years in the planning and making. Hardest part has been the gearbox, they only get built in batches every 6 or so months and I am doing agearset based on the dyno chart for the mtor and an extrapolation to vehicle weigth aero etc. Great auto OCD project.

Part of the fun is choosing all the detail bits, and of course seeing it in pieces.
Yhe cars arrive as rollers, but if you are going to build thoroughly and plan on being on track, best to strip it down and istall all systems in sequence and properly.

I chose the Gt40 after trying a 458 and MP12 both of which were big dissapointemts in the fun to drive and viceral category. Plus a modern supercar is ruinous to try run on track, whereas a Gt40 is robust and simple.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

To be clear, I wasn't knocking it for not being an "exact" tool room copy. I'm a big fan of the SPF Gt40. It is on my "one day" list. Keep the updates coming! Best of luck w/ the build!!

 

I think the MK1 is the prettiest of all the GT40's. I went to Carlisle back in 2005 when SPF was first releasing the car. Bill Ostrower, who was an SPF dealer from New York, had a gray with black stripes MK2 there. It was very nice, even though I like the MK1 much more. I especially like it in the 1075 wide body. A gentleman I know has an ERA 1075 GT40 and it is a great looking car. Best of luck with the build. It looks like it is coming along nicely.

 

No worries, I could tell you liked the car, was just pointing out what sperates a SPF from a period car.

Interesting that a Gelescoe Gt40 is point for point in detail, and they run at the Goodwoowd historics.
The SPF car needs about 70K in detail changes to be goodwood eligable.
Here in USA you can run a spf at svra and hsr.
In Europe no GT40 is allowed to run with a full cage, due to it making the car stiffer..
Eact location places different empahsis.

 

Yep I love the Mk1 shape also. I remember the sports car international magazine spread on the forst ERA car, and thinking one day.

SPF first came out with a Mk2 because the pattern for the spf cars was a MK2 that spf restored, thats how they got started in GT40s.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

If I may.

There is only one MK-IV existent that finished the 1967 24 Hours of Le Mans that is in running condition.

It is in original condition with it's original chassis, engine, chassis plate, gear box, body etc.
It is driven regularly and has been shown around the World. It has been track driven for demonstration but it will never vintage race again.

I have no problem at all with replicas but I do have a problem with non full disclosure and misrepresentation.

This car was not built by The Ford Motor Company/ Kar Kraft in the day. "Kar Kraft" is a totally different later formed company and I find it's use as misleading as I find "continuation".

There were 3 J car tubs, 5 MK tubs, and 2 Can Am tubs. The two spare tubs that were built in the day were unstamped in the day and not built up into cars in the day. J1 and J 2's original tubs were destroyed.

Should one wish to see a REAl MK-IV I will probably have J6 at Pebble.

 

Yep disclosure and spec is everything with recreations.
To the extent someone wnats to drive or see driven a Mk4 in anger on track a recreation is the only option.

For Mk1's there are a significant number of "retubbed origional cars" whatever that means? The old Lemans movie camera car had its roof cut off for fliming and then burned tot he ground. Some remants were found buried and it was retubbed and rebodied and sold for 11 mill. Not sure what that says. In short a number of "origional" cars are really a few pieces of an older build with a largely new car, to me this is a masquerade, but the market attaches significant value to an old chassis plate on a new build. In this sense these cars are the ones really fooling people.


There are gelescoe cars running at goodwood which one may not realise are period builds at all.


There are spf Mk1's which are licensed by the type holders but not as "correct" in minor detail as a gelescoe.

To me a Mk1 Gt40 is a car that has the orgional pattern type tub, and origional suspension layout/dynamics, that means it will drive the same and have the same dynamics as a period build. It should also run a 289/302 sbf.

A new build should not necessarly ape period paint schenes, that way there is little to no danger of anyone being "fooled" that its a period build.

Basicaly its all about spec, and standards.

As to the new Mk4's some of them are tool room copies in terms of build, debatable whether they are licensed, but do drive and run are the same as a period build, and as there is only one running period build, and it does not race, nor imo should a priceless intact artifact be chewed up in "historic" racing.

In short I argue that we need honesty in the whole historic thing. Some form of licensing as FIA does in europe as to spec. Many orgional cars are really chassis plate new builds, others are licensed continuations. To a large extent when people pay large $$$ there is an knowledgeable understanding/research as to what they are buying. Although the lemans movie car is debatable.

If historic racing is really to continue, if mythic car's other than with rare execptions(Jim) are to be continued to be used on road and track, continuations are the option. That is why we have santion 2 DB Zagatos, and newbuild old chassis number etype lighweights, gelescoe and other Gt40's, not to mention pur sang bugattis and new build chevron B16's etc.

All of these are the vanguard of an ever growing trend. But yes they shoud absolutely be distinguished from period builds, just as period builds should be clear about the degree of origional material left.

The people mainly against recreations seem to be some(not all) dealers as they worry it will slow the escalation in price of period chassis plate cars.

We can also argue that plastic cobras have given recreations a bad rap, but then most plastic cobras are really kit cars bearing only a silouette resemblance to a cobra.

As the bugatti folks say, what makes a buggati is how its built(spec), and the materials used, not when or where it was built. Warbird people are the same with a significant number of new build ww2 german and russian aircraft being added to "data plate rebuilt" spitfires and mustangs. But then in an aircraft you want all new structural pices.

Wooden boat peopel refer to restroations, what they are really saving is some fittings and using an old rotten hull as a pattern.

Its happening all over, just now with cars too. Standards, including declarations are the key. Think how many older ferraris could have been saved recently if recreatiosn with spec were properly reckognised(forbidding chops). Instead we have period build cars being chopped into somethign else, because they have a data plate that lends "authenticity" to a modern period repilca. I am thinking specificaly of the can am car chopped into a p4.

Like everyhting in life, there are lots of grey areas, but recreations are here to stay and growing, particularily in historic racing even at high end events like goodwood. So it makes sense to find a way to distinguish accept and deal with recreations.

Maybe agood place to start is a defintion as to what Real and Continuation and What recreation and what Tool Room copy mean. Persoanlly I liek terms such a s period build/historic and new build. Like the cars themselvs there is ots of grey area in the terms, with lots of motivations for their application to different cars.

In my case the spf is going to live on track and be used for the pure uadulterated joy of driving at speed,(somethign very hard to do on street cosnsistently or safetly) the paint scheme is nothign that existed in period.

All of which raises the next issue of modern sportscars being too bland and road untill 10/10ths, too fast for modern road conditions and too heavy for the track. Seems that betwen a 250swb and aGt40 there was sweetspot in car design, for occasional road use and serious track fun, with lots of great noise and charisma. With the exception of the Lotus elise, nothing modern really compares. None of which is to criticise the new z06 or z28 they are the last survisvors in a long line of stick shift charisma cars, still kinda heavy though, the germans and Italians imo checked out and moved to hybrids, ie you drive alongside a computer wit paddles, much faster, but one of the reasons for the rise of recreations.

 

I agree, well stated. I think that it is great there are a few mfgs. out there replicating these cars. It allows more people to experience some of these cars that might not have been able to due to the significant cost of the originals. It also lets you enjoy them without the risk of damaging an original piece. To list some of the more accurate recreations are Gelscoe, SPF, Mirage, Gox, Classic Car Developments, and ERA. When recreations use tube frames, just like the replica Cobra's who use fiberglass bodies instead of aluminum, something is lost. I know that it allows some people to get the experience of driving something that looks like the real car, but can slight the excellent recreations to the uninformed.

They are now recreating the Porsche 550, and even Jaguar is releasing a recreation of one of their own cars.

As long as there is full disclosure about the cars origin, I think it is great for the car hobby in general.

 

All these definitions and manufacturers and new recreations and continuations muddy the waters of the true collector market which is very small as Jim points out. Originals were made in the day and that's it. All others are not original and not part of that market. This should be respected.

This also does not take away from any of the beauty, style and craftsmanship of the new cars and allows for old style racing to be emulated in modern times. Its win-win as long as there is full disclosure.