Has anyone actually seen this car in person?

This is a full wheel base that loosely represents the 550 Spyder, they are not a desirable replica because they are outside the box , the engine isn't even in the right location for a Spyder. I believe this one was mfg. by Perry. Best to keep looking.

Has anyone else noticed that they've gone to great lengths to blur out the Porsche emblems on the nipple caps....but then they completely overlooked the rather large emblem under the "frunk" next to the Castrol sticker.  

What you saw as damaged looked to me like something reflecting off of the paint. It’s a stretch to say it is one of the finest reproductions built. The proportions are way off and the engine is too far behind the rear wheels to be balanced properly. 

Napa Paul posted:

Has anyone else noticed that they've gone to great lengths to blur out the Porsche emblems on the nipple caps....but then they completely overlooked the rather large emblem under the "frunk" next to the Castrol sticker.  

The "Porsche" name and Stuttgart coat of arms are proprietary and they go to great lengths to protect their property, but they don't own 'Speedster' and 'Spyder'. 

The problem (I see) with this car is, as Alan said, that not being a very faithful replica (stretched wheelbase, rear engine'd) it isn't generally thought of as desirable, so if you think it's cool, great, but the thing to be aware, @Teach, is if/when you tire of it there may not be a big market for this car.

The Perry D (for Design) is based on a full size VW pan.  Dan Blocker - Hoss on Bonanza had one and he fit in it.  It just isn't proportioned correctly. Has to be the cheapest kit ($4k) out there.

http://perryspyder.com/

ALB posted:

Napa Paul posted:

Has anyone else noticed that they've gone to great lengths to blur out the Porsche emblems on the nipple caps....but then they completely overlooked the rather large emblem under the "frunk" next to the Castrol sticker.  

The "Porsche" name and Stuttgart coat of arms are proprietary and they go to great lengths to protect their property, but they don't own 'Speedster' and 'Spyder'. 

The problem (I see) with this car is, as Alan said, that not being a very faithful replica (stretched wheelbase, rear engine'd) it isn't generally thought of as desirable, so if you think it's cool, great, but the thing to be aware, @Teach, is if/when you tire of it there may not be a big market for this car.

It's the large friggin' Porsche shield next to the big Castrol sticker that I'm talking about. This dealer is almost flaunting it...after blurring it on the hubcaps. Maybe he's "challenging" the P-Police? 

Ok, the crest in the trunk next to the Castrol sticker- I see it now. Yeah, don't know what's going on with that...

ALB posted:

Napa Paul posted:

Has anyone else noticed that they've gone to great lengths to blur out the Porsche emblems on the nipple caps....but then they completely overlooked the rather large emblem under the "frunk" next to the Castrol sticker.  

The "Porsche" name and Stuttgart coat of arms are proprietary and they go to great lengths to protect their property, but they don't own 'Speedster' and 'Spyder'. 

The problem (I see) with this car is, as Alan said, that not being a very faithful replica (stretched wheelbase, rear engine'd) it isn't generally thought of as desirable, so if you think it's cool, great, but the thing to be aware, @Teach, is if/when you tire of it there may not be a big market for this car.

One correction Al, Speedster HAS to be used in conjunction with Porsche as in Porsche Speedster for it to be a trademark violation. If you just say “Speedster” by itself then Porsche can’t say anything.  

Normally, stuff like this gets a hard "pass" from me-- but I've always liked the concept. The balance is no worse than a speedster, and probably better. If you think of it as a very Spyder-like Speedster it kinda' makes sense. It's certainly roomier than a "real" (mid-engine) fake Spyder. As Wolfgang notes-- they're dirt cheap.

The issue for me is that nose. It's got a face only a mother could love. That thing fell out of an ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down.

Robert raises an interesting point about trademark infringement.  It is true that Porsche only claims trademark rights, among many others, to the term "Porsche Speedster".  However, it is important to remember that Porsche does claim trade dress rights to several Porsche models, including the 356, 911 and others.

Trade dress differs from trademark rights, as trade dress primarily refers to a shape or packaging, while trademarks are usually written words.  We all remember the distinctive shape of the Coca-Cola soft drink bottle, which is commonly used as the ultimate example of trade dress protection.  The U.S. Trademarks Act (1946), popularly called the Lanham Act, is the primary legal vehicle used to bring cases of possible trademark/trade dress infringement, with a large body of case law, both in federal and state courts.

Courts also recognize that those companies claiming infringement of copyrights have obligations themselves to the public at large.  The most common defense of laches or acquiescence means that, if a plaintiff waits too long to bring a cause of action against a defendant, he may lose Lanham Act protection status, merely by his delay.  The courts' thinking may go something like this:  Porsche had the chance in the 1970's to assert their trade dress claims, as replica makers were selling Speedsters on the open market.  Now, after so many years, investments have been made, businesses and suppliers and their attendant employees have all secured financing, paid rent and suppliers, all based on the non-enforcement of Porsche.  The analogy courts sometime use to show acquiescence or seeming agreement is the "spite fence".  You watch your neighbor measure and build a fence between your property and his, knowing that he is building it on your land.  You have an obligation to inform him ASAP, not wait until he is done, then claim ownership of the fence.   

We all know that Porsche seems to enforce trade name rights vigorously, while seemingly ignoring trade dress protection.  Courts would have to determine whether sufficient time has passed for a defendant to put forth the defense of laches, but Speedster replicas have been sold openly for over 40 years, so Porsche may have lost their chance of trade dress enforcement.   

At any rate, Porsche and their legal staff will have discussed options for decades, and made decisions based on many factors: economic, good will, public relations, perception, etc.  They are not in the least concerned about our discussions on SOC.  This is by no means an exhaustive analysis, but may ignite some interest.  I always suggest that members do their own research, using several sources, and make a decision based on that research.

Well, the gas tank is nice.

That's all I've got, without being negative. I'd rather drag my luggage behind my small Spyder rather than to be caught in that butt-ugly-from-any-and-all-angles "thing". Is it a Karmann Ghia?

Jim, what you speak of with regard to trade dress, wasn't that why Shelby lost his suit? I mean, he didn't even manufacture the Cobra bodies(AC did) originally but wanted to trademark the shape.

What began as a simple inquiry about a particular car for sale has gone in several directions...each interesting. I am enjoying (and learning from) this dialog.

I have owned quite a few interesting old(ish) cars over the years, but still have much to learn.

I have looked at images of Spyders and compared them to the Perry D and do see the differences. To be honest, I think I am fairly neutral in preference (short vs. long) but fully recognize that if you pursued a replica because you fell in love with the original, the original's proportions are probably what is going to appeal most to you.

+1 for a Dan Blocker reference! How often does Hoss work himself into a conversation?!?

Upon further study, the white spot on the right rear fender does not appear to be a reflection- it does not move when the camera moves. It appears to be where there would be some type of lock or release button for the pivoting engine cover section (as can be seen better on the left side)- those of you familiar with these replicas would probably know. However, on the right side, it almost looks like the fiberglass has cracked, extending down from the button. It would be worth asking the seller about (and for a closer image).

In the video associated with the ad., the driver grinds gears multiple times, blaming it on trying to steer and shift...I would guess that he means steer, shift, and hold the cell phone while recording. Would a '69 VW gearbox have synchros?

Jim Kelly posted:

Robert raises an interesting point about trademark infringement.  It is true that Porsche only claims trademark rights, among many others, to the term "Porsche Speedster".  However, it is important to remember that Porsche does claim trade dress rights to several Porsche models, including the 356, 911 and others.

Trade dress differs from trademark rights, as trade dress primarily refers to a shape or packaging, while trademarks are usually written words.  We all remember the distinctive shape of the Coca-Cola soft drink bottle, which is commonly used as the ultimate example of trade dress protection.  The U.S. Trademarks Act (1946), popularly called the Lanham Act, is the primary legal vehicle used to bring cases of possible trademark/trade dress infringement, with a large body of case law, both in federal and state courts.

Courts also recognize that those companies claiming infringement of copyrights have obligations themselves to the public at large.  The most common defense of laches or acquiescence means that, if a plaintiff waits too long to bring a cause of action against a defendant, he may lose Lanham Act protection status, merely by his delay.  The courts' thinking may go something like this:  Porsche had the chance in the 1970's to assert their trade dress claims, as replica makers were selling Speedsters on the open market.  Now, after so many years, investments have been made, businesses and suppliers and their attendant employees have all secured financing, paid rent and suppliers, all based on the non-enforcement of Porsche.  The analogy courts sometime use to show acquiescence or seeming agreement is the "spite fence".  You watch your neighbor measure and build a fence between your property and his, knowing that he is building it on your land.  You have an obligation to inform him ASAP, not wait until he is done, then claim ownership of the fence.   

We all know that Porsche seems to enforce trade name rights vigorously, while seemingly ignoring trade dress protection.  Courts would have to determine whether sufficient time has passed for a defendant to put forth the defense of laches, but Speedster replicas have been sold openly for over 40 years, so Porsche may have lost their chance of trade dress enforcement.   

At any rate, Porsche and their legal staff will have discussed options for decades, and made decisions based on many factors: economic, good will, public relations, perception, etc.  They are not in the least concerned about our discussions on SOC.  This is by no means an exhaustive analysis, but may ignite some interest.  I always suggest that members do their own research, using several sources, and make a decision based on that research.

"...if a plaintiff waits too long to bring a cause of action against a defendant, he may lose Lanham Act protection status, merely by his delay."

Not to get sidetracked and I am not a lawyer...  but I actually think I agree with this.  I don't believe that Porsche needs money or to severely bolster their sales, but in general, I suppose a company could sit back and intentionally wait for all others to bring that one company's design or idea to prominence and then try and bring up a lawsuit(s) once there's tons of money involved.  I feel very few things on my tub actually match a real '57 speedster, and the things that DO have the Porsche badging on it...  I could see Porsche taking an exception to.

I don't even know where I am going here...  cyber-babble I guess.  

Robert M posted:

ALB posted:

Napa Paul posted:

Has anyone else noticed that they've gone to great lengths to blur out the Porsche emblems on the nipple caps....but then they completely overlooked the rather large emblem under the "frunk" next to the Castrol sticker.  

The "Porsche" name and Stuttgart coat of arms are proprietary and they go to great lengths to protect their property, but they don't own 'Speedster' and 'Spyder'. 

The problem (I see) with this car is, as Alan said, that not being a very faithful replica (stretched wheelbase, rear engine'd) it isn't generally thought of as desirable, so if you think it's cool, great, but the thing to be aware, @Teach, is if/when you tire of it there may not be a big market for this car.

One correction Al, Speedster HAS to be used in conjunction with Porsche as in Porsche Speedster for it to be a trademark violation. If you just say “Speedster” by itself then Porsche can’t say anything.  

 I know Speedster and Spyder have been used by other car companies, Robert (and @Jim Kelly)- I'm guessing that's why they can't protect them? You know they would if they could...

@Teach wrote- "How often does Hoss work himself into a conversation?!?"

I was thinking the same thing! I'm sure he'd be pleased to know we were talking about him.

 And "Would a '69 VW gearbox have synchros?"

Definitely! Older transaxles in oval window Beetles (March 1953- 1957) and big window bugs to 1960 had a 2 piece transaxle case with syncros in 2nd, 3rd and 4th gears, but not in 1st so you had to be at a dead stop to shift back down. They're of no use to us- they don't stand up well to more hp and there's very limited upgrading available so leave them for the vintage freaks. Starting in '61 (with the 1 piece 'tunnel' cases) they were fully synchronized (and somewhat stronger). Just a note- if you are looking for a trans core (for rebuilding) and come across 1 out of a '61, again, walk away. That first year had a number of issues and is best left to someone restoring a '61 bug. There were a multitude of revisions for longer life over the next few years and about '66-'67 they became much more dependable (and a better base for a performance build).

The guy either can't shift properly, the clutch is in serious need of adjustment or the syncros are all fubar'd ( because he's a moron and can't shift). 

"What began as a simple inquiry about a particular car for sale has gone in several directions...each interesting. I am enjoying (and learning from) this dialog."

We've stayed fairly on track though- when we start going out waaaay past left field is where it sometimes gets really interesting!

 thought for the day- from own Bob G- "and if the 4 rubber parts end up pointing towards the sky, well, not good..."

It amazingly has a engine with 1915 litres!  (See item specs)

A '69 would have fully synchronized trans - suspect the linkage/shifter need attention.  Often just a $1 nylon bushing is all that needed.  A quality shifter (CSP) would make it shift like a 911.

This is a Pod Cast from Mark Smyth Factory Five vs. Ford Carroll Shelby) it is the second part but it's interesting....       Mark owned half of FFR with his brother Dave who now owns it in it's entirety . Mark now owns the very successful Smyth Performance Inc. that makes six different Pick up truck conversions.   https://www.bing.com/videos/se...o%26%26FORM%3DVDVVXX

Dan Blocker and the 3 Bears Story 

That car is fugly; the wheelbase is long; proportions don't look right.

@Teach posted:

What began as a simple inquiry about a particular car for sale has gone in several directions...each interesting. I am enjoying (and learning from) this dialog.

I have owned quite a few interesting old(ish) cars over the years, but still have much to learn.

I have looked at images of Spyders and compared them to the Perry D and do see the differences. To be honest, I think I am fairly neutral in preference (short vs. long) but fully recognize that if you pursued a replica because you fell in love with the original, the original's proportions are probably what is going to appeal most to you.

+1 for a Dan Blocker reference! How often does Hoss work himself into a conversation?!?

Upon further study, the white spot on the right rear fender does not appear to be a reflection- it does not move when the camera moves. It appears to be where there would be some type of lock or release button for the pivoting engine cover section (as can be seen better on the left side)- those of you familiar with these replicas would probably know. However, on the right side, it almost looks like the fiberglass has cracked, extending down from the button. It would be worth asking the seller about (and for a closer image).

In the video associated with the ad., the driver grinds gears multiple times, blaming it on trying to steer and shift...I would guess that he means steer, shift, and hold the cell phone while recording. Would a '69 VW gearbox have synchros?

 

 

I see what you're referencing now. I was looking at everything on my phone before which I shouldn't have done. Not sure what it is. Hard to tell if it is damage or not. Still not my cup of tea.

I think the Perry D is a reasonable option for tall guys who want to drive something unusual & aren't all hung up on the Spyder proportions or details. You build one with a big Type 1 or a Suby and you could have a fun runner that you won't see coming at you on the road. 

Buy it cheap and sell it cheap. It is what it is.

As for those early split-case transaxles? Well, @ALB, those are for the early Bug fanatics AND for the Spyder replica guys who just have to have the details right.