Remaking Older Models

Iconic production cars and concepts like the F40, 250 GTO, Mythos, P5 (and so many others) seem to withstand the test of time with ease, and are not easily forgotten.

I understand that one-offs were made for the likes of The Sultan of Brunei, Clapton, and even Jim Glickenhaus. My question is, if money were no object...what would be some of the issues one would face in getting Ferrari to dig out the blueprints of (for the sake of example), the F40, and producing a fresh batch of models in 2014 that are identical to those that came before?
Is this not a reason car makers preserve documentation on every model?

 

Too many safety and emission standards that are waaaaay beyond those car of years past. Also pissing off core customers would not be good. Talk about taking away any notion of limited production numbers and exclusivity. It's more likely that Enzo Ferrari gets cloned to run the company again one day.

 

Thanks a lot, I was always curious about that. With stories like this one: Ferrari GTO Becomes Most Expensive Car at $35 Million - Bloomberg it makes sense that there would be an uproar from owners if they started rolling off the line again. Not really a practical approach to meeting supply and demand, but I imagine maintaining the satisfaction of the customers and not tainting cultural legacy are more important. Technically though, being able to build these older models in an identical way should not be a problem right?

 

Technically no, (not on the surface of it), but it could be very very expensive IMHO. Some handcrafting methods (bodywork) may not be available and would have to be relearned or recreated - and many outside parts would be obsolete and thus would not be readily available. To really reproduce one could cost practically as much as the originals are worth on the market.

 

I think it would have to be more in the vein of the 2005 Ford GT -- the original GT40 is impossible to re-create and wouldn't be legal or usable anywhere. The reissue was clean, safe, mass-produceable, comfortable and road-usable.

Same would apply to the original Ferrari 250 GTO, or anything carbureted for that matter. It would need to be extensively "reinterpreted" to be saleable today.

The other consideration is that Ferrari have gone back to the well several times, using the Mondial, California and GTO names for lesser cars. Remakes might destroy the remaining values for those. (I.e., if you could buy something as stunning as a modern 250 GTO, you wouldn't bother with the 599 "GTO".)

 

Yes, I was talking about an exact reproduction. Of course, now somebody is going to bring up the PurSang Argentinian Bugatti 35s, or the fact that you can still make a pretty good Cobra replica with an aluminum body (so long as there are still engines), or the people in England building a near-exact Porsche 904 replica.

 

The original Gt40 is produced under license and is freely available. Its about 150k.

 

If you are talking older cars from the 50/60's there are a number of comapanies that will make you your car of choice. For ferraris in the past this required chopping a lesser ferrari 2+2 for motor and chassis. Latley new blocks and gearboxes are being cast so no need to do a chop. A 250 GTO or SWB can be recreated down to the last nut and bolt for about 500-600k, allegretti in Italy and DK engineering in the UK seem to be conmsiddered virtualy indistinguishable from old builds but have better quality construction.

The issue is if you have not done a chop of an existing ferrari its technicaly not a ferrari and maker cannot put ferrari badges on it. You can of course buy ferrari badges and put them on.


Some people call nut and bolt recreations a Fake, they believe these cars are built to project wealth you dont have and pose around.

Others like myself see recreations as a way to save the original old cars for posterity, and that rcereactions offer the same driving experience without the risk of destroying a precious artifact so you can really get on it. Many owners of origional builds reputedly have recreations for hard use soa s to preserve the original. Plus of course recreations while not cheap are least attainable.

Some controversey also surrounds unscrupulous individulas fraudulently selling recreations as original cars. Then of course you have origional cars that crashed and or burned to the gorund, what isxists now is a recreation with old chassis plate.

If you want the driving experoeince of you favorite old racing ferrari Jag or aston a recreation is one good way to go, as its as enjoyable as the original to drive and is an order of magnitude less expemnsive, but its still more than say a new ferrari. The key is declaring it for what it is and not claming its an old build from the factory.

as to F40's and 288's these are less cottage industry products, they would probably be more expernsive to recreate than say a 250 gto and because there is less hype there is less demand. Probably you can buy a F40 for less than the cost of recreating it. A 288 might be interesting.

You can also get ford Gt40 recreations with continuation chassis numbers for 150k, certain cobras recreate the original exactly just better built, and proteus in the Uk does very good jaguar c and dtypes. Lynxx in the Uk also does nut and bolt copy D typoes and Xkss and pur sang in Aregentina does old bugattis and as does Ivan dutton in the Uk.

Some of the abovementioned recreations are santioned by the liceseholder and are consdiddered authetic continuations. I think you can also get Chevron B16's and Lola T70's from the manufacturers.

Reacreations are different from kit cars in that recreations copy the original pretty much exactly, in that senbse they are carbon copies, sperated from an old build by time not substance.

 

Yes, agreed on that Boxerman - but again, I was talking about really making these cars under new manufacture (mechanicals & all) - not just using vintage donor cars.

Due to the great cost and obvious lack of provenance, I still say they would be more expensive to do than what they were worth.

 

I would love to see a new version of the 288 GTO but manufactures like Ferrari are too forward thinking style wise to ever revisit older designs.

 

The newer GTo repilacs are totaly new mechanicals. The SPF GT40 is totaly new mechanicals, same with a kirkham cobra or a pursang, there are no donor cars involved here at all. I would say the cost of doing a new F40 would exceed what its worth, you can just buy a good F40. But pretty much every new car depreciates, people pay a premuin for new builds. The history of recreations, especialy of ferraris is that they too appreciate. A 288 isa $1million car, so for 500k on recreation it might be worth it, for 700k well why not just stretch to an old build. But at a certain point it will make sense, a 288 is also still very cottage industry to build.


Now if you re talking modern spec, ie crash protection airbags etc. The Ford Gt is as close as one gets, a MBW z8 is apretty good etype looking car. It turns out though that retro styling is not a big seller.

 

I would love to see a new version of the 288 GTO but manufactures like Ferrari are too forward thinking style wise to ever revisit older designs.

 

At the end of the day, a recreation is a recreation, replica a replica and a tribute a tribute.
Replicas, even original factory made, do nothing to the value of an original, whether it is a Fender Nocaster/Telecaster/Stratocaster, Rolex Daytona, or AC/Shelby Cobra.

Manufacturers that go "retro" to the point of the common person being unable to differentiate the new from the old (eg Ford GT) is often a sign that the company is in a bad way. Nostaligia never represents as much market share and profitability as a good new market segment.

 

Yes. A reissue, modernized and updated, by the original manufacturer.

Although I agree, you're not really getting an F40 or 250 GTO, so the cost would exceed the value.

 

Maybe the only real success story so far is BMW and the MINI Cooper, which is a terrific modern car in its own right. I can't imagine BMW just reissuing the original Austin-based Mini. Would have been a flop.

With Ford, they were in a bad way in a 2005, so they reached back to their last important car and resurrected it.

For Ferrari, I'm not convinced that the California or 599 "GTO" edition were a good use of what had been legendary names. Perhaps Ferrari has already gone back to the trough one too many times.

 

Come to think of it, didn't Lamborghini make hints at a modern-day Miura (including retro-styling), but then think better of it?

 

I think if you look at the enzo, and then what Jim did with the p4/5 that some historic themes, certainly harmonious blanace might not have been a bad idea at ferrari, but then they took a page out of his book with the mid section of laferrari. Of course the 458 is an all new design and as stunning as any classic, so it can be done.

Agree about BMW, the mni and the current mustang seem to be the only really sucessful retro themed cars.

 

Yes it was going to be based on a murci. I worte to them to be put on the list of buyers. Probably too few buyers and not the dorection they wanted to go.

BTW I think the aventador has that radical magic of lambos of old, the first real stunner since the CT. If youa re talking modern supercars the aventador may not be dynamicaly the best of fatest, but its surely the one to own for sheer supercarness. To get the same driving drama and far out looks, you need to go over 1 mill with a Pagani or konigsegg. Yes the F12 is more accomplished, but seriously from a looks perspective if you are going front engined and modern the new vette is more dramatic and harmonious.

 

Another fact of life on these recreations is that the old cars did not really have to deal with ultra high speed aero effects.

Remember - the original Miura, while a supercar for its day, really had a lower performance profile than a non-turbo Porsche 993 of the 1990s.

If you made one out of a Murci, it would probably need so much aero mods that it would not look like a Miura any more.

 

That is a really interesting point you make. Surely as time goes on, 20-40-100 years into the future, these classics will likely still be traded and will be well kept, sure...but even if you come to own one (and probably pay considerably depending on the condition), who wants to drive it? People argue that owning a classic....it's not all for show, driving is a joy of classic car ownership, but is it?

Would you not rather spend the money, and get a brand new "recreation," as you define it, to the nut and bolt identical, so you can get a feel for the driving experience, without the stress of ruining something that's been so well preserved?

 

Not to mention, races with recreations are far more entertaining. If you go to vintage races its the 30-50 alfas that are burning up the track, who wants to risk wrecjing a swb or GTO.

Its two tings really, one is you can really drive the wheels of a recreation without worrying about fatique or ruining something really really expensive. the oher reason for us in the so called upper middle class but not billionaires is that these great cars are now financila investements priced well well inot the never attainable stratosphere. there are no modern equivalents, so its make a recreation and enjoy it purely for the drive.

Considder in the early 70's a GTo was a 7k car. the only people buying them and using them were those who loved them for what they are, to others they were just used up old cars. So a recreation is to love a GTO or swb or car of your choice purely for the driving, for what it is mechanicaly, because a recreation is not going to have cachet other than for those who puerly love the drive.

 

I wanna see the 308 make a come back to replace the Ferrari California as the base entry model! It would be epic, toss in a little V8, mid engined targa top car for about the price of an R8! They need to jump on that market!

 

Ferrari feels almost diametrically opposite. They have 0 interest in this super crowded market:

Ferrari to limit production, rules out IPO | News.com.au

I actually think its a good move. BMW, Benz, Porsche, Audi... all have hugely cheapened their brands out of necessity. Ferrari is one of the rare brands that can *exclusively* deal with *only* enormously wealthy people. It's a good problem to have No need to move downmarket for them IMO (and theirs too)

On the original topic, I think the repro thing is interesting. At some point I suspect it will be *mandatory*

I can absolutely forsee the day when a car that doesnt have some level of autonomous control (and is able to participate in a "transportation grid") and isn't some form of hybrid, wont be able to be driven legally off a race track *at all*. At that point the ancient cars from the 20th century will pretty much be relegated to museum status (or the recycling pile for any of the modern crap heaps... LOL), and a repro of a classic, but equipped with a powerplant and onboard intelligence that meets regulations, would be likely quite appealing to many.

 

I´ve always said that if I wanted a car that looked old, I´d better buy an old car.

 

I would like to see the traditional targa top make a comeback. It's a simple, sensible design with nothing to fail.

But the 308 is just too low, too small, too ergonomically compromised to make it in today's car market.

I'm pretty sure Ferrari would say the 458 is the successor, although the 308 was ten times prettier.