Are R/T clones worth more?

[1969chargerrtse]

There are to many variables here to compare fair.  A clone is a clone, something copied off of something true and original.   Nothing beats the original Mc Coy.  I would take a 30,000.00 restored true R/T over a 100,00.00 clone.  I could care less if it was faster. It's not about that. But that's not what this thread was originally intended for anyway. It was about the value of a clone R/T over a XP car. And it's certainly not about one person feeling better than another over what type of car he has, correct VIN or not.

I'm not 64 yet, but this is how I feel also.

" When your 64 years old there's not too many things that make you feel young again. But, when I'm driving the Charger I feel like I'm twenty again and you can't put a price tag on that. Maybe that's drifting a little away from the subject at hand, but it still gets back to how much a vin# means to you. It's just a matter of opinion and everybody's got one. "

[Cooter]

I have an XS, but would never think it's better than anybody's Charger. The only other car I am really wanting right now is an XP Charger. I hope if I ever have an attitude of "I have a real muscle car and you have a clone", that my friends would drag me on the pavement with their Charger.  

Clones can easily outsell an XS Charger. Lot's of factors are involved, but if you don't think it happens, you are delusional. Again...

Again, Finally, someone gets it.....To a "Purist" the XS car will always be worth more. To the "Charger Fan", the well done clone will be worth more to them as it is every bit as good as the "Real deal", cept it handles better, gets better MPG, makes double the HP, Rides better, etc.

[1969chargerrtse]

I have an XS, but would never think it's better than anybody's Charger. The only other car I am really wanting right now is an XP Charger. I hope if I ever have an attitude of "I have a real muscle car and you have a clone", that my friends would drag me on the pavement with their Charger.  

Clones can easily outsell an XS Charger. Lot's of factors are involved, but if you don't think it happens, you are delusional. Again...

Again, Finally, someone gets it.....To a "Purist" the XS car will always be worth more. To the "Charger Fan", the well done clone will be worth more to them as it is every bit as good as the "Real deal", cept it handles better, gets better MPG, makes double the HP, Rides better, etc.

That's all good as long as it's understood a purist is a Charger fan also.  Matter of fact I would think a purist is the ultimate Charger fan.

[Brass]

All things being equal, the R/T should fetch more than the clone.  Though I can't imagine they're always more valuable.  (The market is too subjective there - based on many factors.)  Perhaps modified XP cars didn't come from the factory that way – but so what?  Without a pedigree, that makes the modified XP more of a hot rod than the R/T.  I'm guessing collectors are the ones mostly concerned about whether a car is a "real McCoy" or not.  I for one just wanted a car I could do with as I like and drive it how I want.  To that end, I purposefully wanted a base model.  Still very much a Charger but I can upgrade it without guilt and I didn't have to pay what a R/T could have demanded.  

Indeed we are all Charger fans here but to imply anyone is less a Charger fan because they're not a "purist" comes across a little snobby, 1969chargerrtse.  And it contradicts what you said earlier about this not being about "one person feeling better than another over what type of car he has, correct VIN or not."  

[Charger-Bodie]

If theres one thing we should all agree on,its the fact that it just isnt a plain cut and dried deal. If it were there wouldnt be any of these pages of debate.

[bill440rt]

If theres one thing we should all agree on,its the fact that it just isnt a plain cut and dried deal. If it were there wouldnt be any of these pages of debate.

x2

7 pages and this is still going... 

There's a lot of blanket statements in this thread, matters of opinion, etc. Everyone each has their own set of thoughts, none of them could be considered "incorrect". We are ALL Charger fans on here (duh), or else we would be on some Ferd forum (no offense, Ferd fans...).     We each enjoy the hobby in our own way. There is NOTHING "wrong" with that.

I own a real XS R/T, an XP R/T clone, and an XP R/T clone/restomod. I enjoy each one equally, in it's own special way. I find hunting down that elusive date-coded NOS part for the XS car as a challenge which I ENJOY, just as much as making the R/T clone a little faster or modifying the restomod a little more. I don't feel "locked in" either with the XS car, honestly I wouldn't want it any other way. It's how I enjoy my hobby. Does that make it wrong? I don't think so.

They all have sentimental value to me, so neither one is "worth" any more than the other. Meaning, if I was forced to sell one of them I'd have a REALLY hard time letting one go over the other. Although, dollar-wise I'd have to say the XS car is the most valuable.
They're still all muscle cars to me.

[Cooter]

Matter of fact I would think a purist is the ultimate Charger fan.

This type of response is why the "Purist" will always be in the same category as the guy that reads VIN numbers at a car show, then turns to his buddy and says "I can't believe someone would do this to an original R/T [Speaking of a Daytona, and yes it happened to one of my friends here], when the FACTORY did the VERY same thing...

Only reason IMO [READ opinion] that anybody is willing to "Allow" an original R/T car STAY that way is for the resale value, as these cars were modded right off the showroom floor when purchased new with things like Air Shocks and Cragar wheels..But then again, they weren't considered "Investments" then either. They were just another car that had ....Damn, those "Stinkin' Badges"....

[1969chargerrtse]

All things being equal, the R/T should fetch more than the clone.  Though I can't imagine they're always more valuable.  (The market is too subjective there - based on many factors.)  Perhaps modified XP cars didn't come from the factory that way – but so what?  Without a pedigree, that makes the modified XP more of a hot rod than the R/T.  I'm guessing collectors are the ones mostly concerned about whether a car is a "real McCoy" or not.  I for one just wanted a car I could do with as I like and drive it how I want.  To that end, I purposefully wanted a base model.  Still very much a Charger but I can upgrade it without guilt and I didn't have to pay what a R/T could have demanded.  

Indeed we are all Charger fans here but to imply anyone is less a Charger fan because they're not a "purist" comes across a little snobby, 1969chargerrtse.  And it contradicts what you said earlier about this not being about "one person feeling better than another over what type of car he has, correct VIN or not."  

"That's all good as long as it's understood a purist is a Charger fan also.  Matter of fact I would think a purist is the ultimate Charger fan. ".  

I don't find this snobby?  Where obviously all Charger fans?  If one was to call himself a " Purist ".  To me that just means they have a love for the car as it was originally built till the day they die.  Not intended to be a snobby comment at all. I don't find me to be a purist, so it wasn't about me.  If I was my car would be yellow with trim rings and a black top.

Next? 

[R6red4spd69RT]

I think the root of the debate has to do with what a "real" muscle car is. Then the question becomes what is a clone based on that definition.
Below is a definition that is based on what took place during the muscle car era.
From Musclecarclub.com website.


Muscle Car Definition:

Introduction:
Perhaps the most common question people have is what exactly is a muscle car. The term wasn't even used until the late 1970s, in the 1960s there were often called "Super Cars" if called anything at all. Therefore, the actual definition of a muscle car, or which models were muscle cars, is a topic that is often disputed. Here is the general interpretation of what is a muscle car and what cars qualify, and which don't.                     

Strict Definition of a Muscle Car:
A muscle car, by the strictest definition, is an intermediate sized, performance oriented model, powered by a large V8 engine, at an affordable price. Most of these models were based on "regular" production vehicles. These vehicles are generally not considered muscle cars, even when equipped with large V8s. If there was a high performance version available, it gets the credit, and not the vehicle that it was based on.
Examples: Buick GS, Chevrolet Chevelle SS, Dodge Charger R/T, Ford Torino/Cobra, Plymouth GTX, Plymouth Road Runner, Oldsmobile 442, Pontiac GTO

Fullsize Muscle Car:
The strict definition only includes intermediate size vehicles. In reality, performance oriented intermediate size vehicles didn't appear until 1964. Before then, manufacturers took existing fullsize vehicles and added extra performance to them. Because of this, the early fullsize performance vehicles are generally considered muscle cars.
Examples: Chevrolet Impala (SS only), Ford Galaxie (with 390 + cid engines only), Dodge Coronet (R/Ts only), etc.

Pony Cars and Compact Cars:
In addition to fullsize and intermediate muscle cars, a number of smaller vehicles started appearing on the automotive performance scene. These new "pony cars" and compact cars are generally considered muscle cars only if they have the top of the line performance engines and options.
Examples: Chevrolet Camaro (SS and Z28 models only), Ford Mustang (GTs and Boss only), Plymouth 'Cudas (no Barracudas), AMC Javelin, etc.

Personal Luxury Cars and Luxury Cars:
Although there were several personal luxury vehicles with performance engines and options, their heavy weight and high sticker prices went against the low cost performance definition of muscle cars. Therefore, they are not considered muscle cars.
Examples: Buick Riviera, Chrysler 300 Letter Cars, Pontiac Grand Prix, etc.

[Cooter]

All things being equal, the R/T should fetch more than the clone.  Though I can't imagine they're always more valuable.  (The market is too subjective there - based on many factors.)  Perhaps modified XP cars didn't come from the factory that way – but so what?  Without a pedigree, that makes the modified XP more of a hot rod than the R/T.  I'm guessing collectors are the ones mostly concerned about whether a car is a "real McCoy" or not.  I for one just wanted a car I could do with as I like and drive it how I want.  To that end, I purposefully wanted a base model.  Still very much a Charger but I can upgrade it without guilt and I didn't have to pay what a R/T could have demanded.  

Indeed we are all Charger fans here but to imply anyone is less a Charger fan because they're not a "purist" comes across a little snobby, 1969chargerrtse.  And it contradicts what you said earlier about this not being about "one person feeling better than another over what type of car he has, correct VIN or not."  

"That's all good as long as it's understood a purist is a Charger fan also.  Matter of fact I would think a purist is the ultimate Charger fan. ".  

I don't find this snobby?  Where obviously all Charger fans?  If one was to call himself a " Purist ".  To me that just means they have a love for the car as it was originally built till the day they die.  Not intended to be a snobby comment at all. I don't find me to be a purist, so it wasn't about me.  If I was my car would be yellow with trim rings and a black top.

Next? 

The sad part is I believe that you honestly don't get what was said.

[Cooter]

"Plymouth 'Cudas (no Barracudas)" Obviuosly, a purist came up with this "Strict" code and put it out there as such. I call Bullsh*t on this Purist code same as RT/SE up there.


I guess the "Purist" that came up with this one never even heard of the "Hurst" 1968, Hemi Darts and Barracudas. If well over 500 HP isn't considered a "Musclecar" then I must be as confused as the purist that was pompus enough to post this "Strict definition" of a musclecar.

I guess they too have never heard of the "A-990" Coronets that weren't R/T models as the R/T's weren't out for another 2 years....I guess "Musclecars, by this definition, didn't really begin to be built until 1967 in the Dodge line up as that was the first year for an R/T? Dang! I just reallized where R/T/SE gets his thinking from now....

[1969chargerrtse]

All things being equal, the R/T should fetch more than the clone.  Though I can't imagine they're always more valuable.  (The market is too subjective there - based on many factors.)  Perhaps modified XP cars didn't come from the factory that way – but so what?  Without a pedigree, that makes the modified XP more of a hot rod than the R/T.  I'm guessing collectors are the ones mostly concerned about whether a car is a "real McCoy" or not.  I for one just wanted a car I could do with as I like and drive it how I want.  To that end, I purposefully wanted a base model.  Still very much a Charger but I can upgrade it without guilt and I didn't have to pay what a R/T could have demanded.  

Indeed we are all Charger fans here but to imply anyone is less a Charger fan because they're not a "purist" comes across a little snobby, 1969chargerrtse.  And it contradicts what you said earlier about this not being about "one person feeling better than another over what type of car he has, correct VIN or not."  

"That's all good as long as it's understood a purist is a Charger fan also.  Matter of fact I would think a purist is the ultimate Charger fan. ".  

I don't find this snobby?  Where obviously all Charger fans?  If one was to call himself a " Purist ".  To me that just means they have a love for the car as it was originally built till the day they die.  Not intended to be a snobby comment at all. I don't find me to be a purist, so it wasn't about me.  If I was my car would be yellow with trim rings and a black top.

Next?  

The sad part is I believe that you honestly don't get what was said.

Yeah probably.  Or I just don't agree with you? Whatever, I love what I have.

[1969chargerrtse]

"Plymouth 'Cudas (no Barracudas)" Obviuosly, a purist came up with this "Strict" code and put it out there as such. I call Bullsh*t on this Purist code same as RT/SE up there.


I guess the "Purist" that came up with this one never even heard of the "Hurst" 1968, Hemi Darts and Barracudas. If well over 500 HP isn't considered a "Musclecar" then I must be as confused as the purist that was pompus enough to post this "Strict definition" of a musclecar.

I guess they too have never heard of the "A-990" Coronets that weren't R/T models as the R/T's weren't out for another 2 years....I guess "Musclecars, by this definition, didn't really begin to be built until 1967 in the Dodge line up as that was the first year for an R/T? Dang! I just realized where R/T/SE gets his thinking from now....

Well ha ha to you. Most people agree the true Muscle car era was 67 to 72. But you could call the cord a Muscle car for it's time. Who knows, who Care's? Believe it or not, not me.

[R6red4spd69RT]

The Muscle Car definitions above were posted to give historical context. The definition is widely perceived to be much broader today then when it first came into being. That's what happens, things change with the changing times as well they should.

I take the much broader view of what a Muscle Car is. But the above Muscle Car definitions illustrate why many find the original badged cars to be of higher value/desirability than the original non-badged cars.