Nice lookin' Superbird Clone -HEMI 4spd - Ebay

[WINGIN IT]

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1970-Plymouth-Superbird-Hemi-Tribute-/220815501616?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item3369a12930

Except for the bottom, looks pretty nice to me .
Usually clones get too customized, but this one kept pretty true to factory  ( except maybe the rims, but I like those    )

Opinions?

[moparstuart]

I like it , not a factory bird color , and with white interior I would have done white quarter decals  .

[held1823]

i must be the only one here, who hates everything about the idea of a cloned musclecar.

[dreamcatcher]

Magnum 500's were available on birds weren't they?....looks pretty good to me.  

[moparstuart]

i must be the only one here, who hates everything about the idea of a cloned musclecar.

if i had the money to own an original i would have bought one , I didnt so i built what i could afford

[moparstuart]

Magnum 500's were available on birds weren't they?....looks pretty good to me.  

yes but not the chrome edges , they would have had trim rings 

[Brock Samson]

i like it a lot and don't get why anyone would have a problem with a clone..   the paint especially with the white int. the pistole grip and rims are sweet!
                                                                 

[dreamcatcher]

i must be the only one here, who hates everything about the idea of a cloned musclecar.

if i had the money to own an original i would have bought one , I didn't so i built what i could afford

Besides clones keep the rare cars alive.Most people don't drive almost priceless cars on the street. 

[70Sbird]

from the pictures it looks to be a well done car with a window plug and trim, only oddball thing was the T/A -AAR styled exhaust

[held1823]

i knew my earlier comment might not be a popular one. it was not intended to single out anyone, nor dismiss the effort and workmanship that talented people put into building a car to suit their own tastes. it was merely a personal opinion of this practice. the money is yours, not mine, and in no way am i trying to dictate how you should spend it. i fully understand the cost concerns of a genuine musclecar, as i have owned a few over the years. my very first car was a (real) 1970 super bee, a rather simple model to clone. what strikes me as ironic is that back in the day, building a "sleeper" was more in vogue. today, it seems there are more "super bees" running around than chrysler ever built. i cannot imagine what it would be like to own a true 1969 z/28, since a six cylinder camaro would seem to be the more rare model of the two.

someone asked why anyone would take issue with cloning a vehicle. i will use the upcoming meet at the brickyard as an example of my opinion. (once again, it is just one man's personal opinion.) how many "daytonas" or "superbirds" will it look like are in attendence? enough so that the mystique and rarity of the cars is misrepresented. even when forthright owners state their car is a "recreation" or a "tribute", the vast majority of people could believe that what they are seeing is the genuine article. the general public will not think to check v.i.n numbers and fender tags; they will simply see what their eyes tell them. incredible machines such as john's and gene's may not receive the reverence they are due, when the 1970 charger turned daytona parked next to one of them looks to be of equal provenance.

i type this with what might be taken as a heavily biased opinion. my parent's have owned their daytona since september of 1969. inheriting this car will be the only way i can ever own a wing car. with only 500 or so of them built, they were never intended to be sitting in everyone's garage. it truely saddens me for the uniqueness and rarity of a daytona, superbird, or even a brand X musclecar to be so easily distorted. no one has share my opinion, but i hope that no one is offended by it. i will let this ramble be my final comments on the cloning subject, and hope that they do not create any hard feelings. this is too nice of a board for one person's opinion to matter, especially from someone such as me, who is on the outside looking in. 

[200MPH]

i must be the only one here, who hates everything about the idea of a cloned musclecar.

if i had the money to own an original i would have bought one , I didnt so i built what i could afford

Likewise  

its things like this that keep the hobby from growing..

[held1823]

i must be the only one here, who hates everything about the idea of a cloned musclecar.

if i had the money to own an original i would have bought one , I didnt so i built what i could afford

Likewise  

its things like this that keep the hobby from growing..

 

ok, this post makes a liar out of me, since i have to ask a question here.

does the hobby somehow differentiate between restoring a car as its original model and cloning it into a different vehicle? as i stated before, i may be the only one who takes exception to the concept of cloning, but i find it amusing a purist view would "keep the hobby from growing". 

[Brock Samson]

i knew my earlier comment might not be a popular one. it was not intended to single out anyone, nor dismiss the effort and workmanship that talented people put into building a car to suit their own tastes. it was merely a personal opinion of this practice. the money is yours, not mine, and in no way am i trying to dictate how you should spend it. i fully understand the cost concerns of a genuine musclecar, as i have owned a few over the years. my very first car was a (real) 1970 super bee, a rather simple model to clone. what strikes me as ironic is that back in the day, building a "sleeper" was more in vogue. today, it seems there are more "super bees" running around than chrysler ever built. i cannot imagine what it would be like to own a true 1969 z/28, since a six cylinder camaro would seem to be the more rare model of the two.

someone asked why anyone would take issue with cloning a vehicle. i will use the upcoming meet at the brickyard as an example of my opinion. (once again, it is just one man's personal opinion.) how many "daytonas" or "superbirds" will it look like are in attendence? enough so that the mystique and rarity of the cars is misrepresented. even when forthright owners state their car is a "recreation" or a "tribute", the vast majority of people could believe that what they are seeing is the genuine article. the general public will not think to check v.i.n numbers and fender tags; they will simply see what their eyes tell them. incredible machines such as john's and gene's may not receive the reverence they are due, when the 1970 charger turned daytona parked next to one of them looks to be of equal provenance.

i type this with what might be taken as a heavily biased opinion. my parent's have owned their daytona since september of 1969. inheriting this car will be the only way i can ever own a wing car. with only 500 or so of them built, they were never intended to be sitting in everyone's garage. it truely saddens me for the uniqueness and rarity of a daytona, superbird, or even a brand X musclecar to be so easily distorted. no one has share my opinion, but i hope that no one is offended by it. i will let this ramble be my final comments on the cloning subject, and hope that they do not create any hard feelings. this is too nice of a board for one person's opinion to matter, especially from someone such as me, who is on the outside looking in.  

I can see how you might feel that way seeing as your in line for your families original, to you - it would seem probably every tom, richard and harris is parading into car shows without an obvious disclaimer plastered to the side of their cloned tribute. Now That - I can understand.  
I'll just speak for myself in saying a four-speed HEMI DAYTONA is to me the holy grail of Muscle, MOPAR or otherwise. and the only way i could either find or afford one would have been to start on a clone way back in the '80s when i found my R/T SE. in fact, making a "Tribute R/T SE with a sunroof was a consideration, except i needed/wanted something I could thrash around here in the Inner-City and I don't think adding 18 inches would be a prudent move.
I can often spot the tribute/clones as those folks seldom seem mired in a stock appearance and usually do something to visually differentiate from the "Real Deals"... They also tend to drive them more. The folks with the Original Rare cars seem pretty anal about correct everything right down to the flaws like over spray, even though they may have twenty times the $ into a nut and bolt Resto what the car originally cost in the day. 
This one is pretty obvious as to being a clone done to the owners preferences. I'd drive the snot out of it.
Thanks for taking the time to explain your position.
 

[Charger-Bodie]

i knew my earlier comment might not be a popular one. it was not intended to single out anyone, nor dismiss the effort and workmanship that talented people put into building a car to suit their own tastes. it was merely a personal opinion of this practice. the money is yours, not mine, and in no way am i trying to dictate how you should spend it. i fully understand the cost concerns of a genuine musclecar, as i have owned a few over the years. my very first car was a (real) 1970 super bee, a rather simple model to clone. what strikes me as ironic is that back in the day, building a "sleeper" was more in vogue. today, it seems there are more "super bees" running around than chrysler ever built. i cannot imagine what it would be like to own a true 1969 z/28, since a six cylinder camaro would seem to be the more rare model of the two.

someone asked why anyone would take issue with cloning a vehicle. i will use the upcoming meet at the brickyard as an example of my opinion. (once again, it is just one man's personal opinion.) how many "daytonas" or "superbirds" will it look like are in attendence? enough so that the mystique and rarity of the cars is misrepresented. even when forthright owners state their car is a "recreation" or a "tribute", the vast majority of people could believe that what they are seeing is the genuine article. the general public will not think to check v.i.n numbers and fender tags; they will simply see what their eyes tell them. incredible machines such as john's and gene's may not receive the reverence they are due, when the 1970 charger turned daytona parked next to one of them looks to be of equal provenance.

i type this with what might be taken as a heavily biased opinion. my parent's have owned their daytona since september of 1969. inheriting this car will be the only way i can ever own a wing car. with only 500 or so of them built, they were never intended to be sitting in everyone's garage. it truely saddens me for the uniqueness and rarity of a daytona, superbird, or even a brand X musclecar to be so easily distorted. no one has share my opinion, but i hope that no one is offended by it. i will let this ramble be my final comments on the cloning subject, and hope that they do not create any hard feelings. this is too nice of a board for one person's opinion to matter, especially from someone such as me, who is on the outside looking in. 

wow.



I wonder if your opinion of clones would be different if you werent going to "inherit" a Daytona. 

[randr]

"I wonder if your opinion of clones would be different if you werent going to "inherit" a Daytona."

If that happens good luck! might go to brother or sister! are worse yet split!  good luck with that!

[held1823]

no, it would not change a thing. my thoughts apply to a faked super bee, coronet r/t, camaro z/28, boss mustang, or any number of other collectible cars. i realized that disclosure of a family car would elicit a pointed response, but rest assured it is not a matter of the "haves" versus the "have-nots". it has been stated, many times, on this very forum that not every aero car owner comes from money. this particular daytona was purchased as a daily driver, and has seen more than its share of hardship over the past 40 years. ironically, it pretends to be a 1970 charger from the front, and will have to remain that way until finances allow for it to be restored. should i be offended at comments from past threads that state a car like this should be sold to someone who has the means to restore it, rather than just letting it sit?

i would expect owners of a cloned vehicle to take exception to my personal point of view. i suspect that a few owners of the genuine article also do not mind sharing the spotlight that their car rightfully deserves. i am, however, surprised that these offended people would expect everyone to share their enthusiasm for the concept of cloning. i again apologize for ruffling any feathers, but i can not truthfully apologize for disliking the thought of a car, any car, masquarading as something it is not.

[Brock Samson]

i suspect it would matter a lot more the higher one rises in the auto pecking order, kids getting their first beater think
nothing of putting the dreaded Honda R  on their 20 year old Sentra.

[Patronus]

If I were going to inherit a wing car I might be a douche bag too!   

[Charger-Bodie]

no, it would not change a thing. my thoughts apply to a faked super bee, coronet r/t, camaro z/28, boss mustang, or any number of other collectible cars. i realized that disclosure of a family car would elicit a pointed response, but rest assured it is not a matter of the "haves" versus the "have-nots". it has been stated, many times, on this very forum that not every aero car owner comes from money. this particular daytona was purchased as a daily driver, and has seen more than its share of hardship over the past 40 years. ironically, it pretends to be a 1970 charger from the front, and will have to remain that way until finances allow for it to be restored. should i be offended at comments from past threads that state a car like this should be sold to someone who has the means to restore it, rather than just letting it sit?

i would expect owners of a cloned vehicle to take exception to my personal point of view. i suspect that a few owners of the genuine article also do not mind sharing the spotlight that their car rightfully deserves. i am, however, surprised that these offended people would expect everyone to share their enthusiasm for the concept of cloning. i again apologize for ruffling any feathers, but i can not truthfully apologize for disliking the thought of a car, any car, masquarading as something it is not.

So you hate clones,but your Daytona is cloned to a 70 Charger?

[held1823]

"my" daytona? i do not own a daytona. is the daytona i mentioned cloned to a 1970 charger? no, but it did leave the factory with 1970 fenders and hood. is it missing the nose cone? yes, it has been missing for many years. is it still the genuine article? yes. do i care if others disagree with my thoughts on fakes? not even when they show their intelligence like the one individual above.

it is amusing that one person's perspective can draw such scorn. apparently the consensus is that everyone should be appreciative of the practice of replicating a car. i do not mind being in the minority, or for being a "douche" for my opinion. 

[FJ5WING]

Ive said it myself on several occassions that there are more clones every year with seemily at least one new wing car every other year. I  dont think all of you are understanding what he is saying rather you are reading it and replying with "hot" fingers.

he never said the daytona was cloned into a charger, I think only that it has charger front clip?

[WINGIN IT]

from the pictures it looks to be a well done car with a window plug and trim, only oddball thing was the T/A -AAR styled exhaust

ACK ! How did I not notice that ! 
That kills it for me...   Not that it couldn't be changed , but dang thought this one was true to a tribute.
Dang fools ....

[Charger-Bodie]

Ive said it myself on several occassions that there are more clones every year with seemily at least one new wing car every other year. I  dont think all of you are understanding what he is saying rather you are reading it and replying with "hot" fingers.

he never said the daytona was cloned into a charger, I think only that it has charger front clip?

Im not saying that he said it was a clone. It simply does that on its own.

Does it have 70 Charger fenders or daytona fender? Does it have a 70 valance panel? I mean ??

[Charger-Bodie]

"my" daytona? i do not own a daytona. is the daytona i mentioned cloned to a 1970 charger? no, but it did leave the factory with 1970 fenders and hood. is it missing the nose cone? yes, it has been missing for many years. is it still the genuine article? yes. do i care if others disagree with my thoughts on fakes? not even when they show their intelligence like the one individual above.

it is amusing that one person's perspective can draw such scorn. apparently the consensus is that everyone should be appreciative of the practice of replicating a car. i do not mind being in the minority, or for being a "douche" for my opinion. 

So basically you can come on here and express your opinion on clones and the rest of us cant state that we disagree?

[tan top]

nice car !!    lot of awesome work gone into that by the looks of it   

heres the pictures before the add disappears