How about a new Speedster II

Unavailable in the USA

I like it with the exception of the mirrors. Look like they came off of a new Mini, and are mounted too high for my taste.

       
       

One more thing to be thankful for this long three day weekend...

Ted

PGO have been making speedster replicas for quite a while, and were (I think) the first to offer them with water cooled engines.

Personally, I like how they look.

I agree with BobG on the awkwardly high mirrors.

 

But there's also something that strikes me as unusually 'high' (while retaining the classic 'speedster' profile)....the windshield...to accommodate roll up windows

 

It would be terrific if someone came up with a conversion kit consisting of that windshield, the supporting stanchions, window winding mechanism, and the interior top of the door sill...Carey?

 

 

Here's a side profile:

 

 

Here's a photo of the cockpit:

 

The height, especially on the side profile, gives it a bit of Audi TT look.

Reminder....This is not a replica, it is a production vehicle. I want one. It has a 1.6l BMW engine. Here is a link to their site, for those of you challenged with English, it is conveniently in French. http://www.pgo.fr There is a English translation button however. 

Noel, this is a production vehicle imitating a replica!!!!!

I'm not convinced regarding the distinction made between a "production vehicle" and a replica.  When a replica builder produces a wide body Speedster mold on a tube frame, is it now a production vehicle and not a replica?  If a car company puts their own badge on a car, is it now something new?  When you look at PGO car, is there any doubt as to the design lineage?  Perhaps the design tweaking is an effort to avoid copyright litigation by Porsche, but I may be missing something here.  To my undisciplined eye, the PGO models look like Troy's wide angle pictures that are minimized to fit the screen width, kind of cartoonish.

I'm with Ted. 'tain't rait.

By production I mean it is made by an auto mfg. Replica, copy, or whatever you want to call it, it is still pretty cool. It does resemble a TT. As someone said a few weeks ago about the 59D replica on ebay for $75k (still there with no bids), "why buy a replica when you can buy a replica."

 

The stereo...looks like a wart under the dash. The proportions look comical. I don't like the tall head rests.

However, I love those wheels.

 

I'm askeered to drive it! 

Jim.

 "wide angle pictures that are minimized to fit the screen width"

I'm not sure what you are talking about.  Can you show me an example?  I don't have a wide angle lens and have never taken a wide angle picture.

I think Jim is making reference to your pics for ebay.

 

Subsequently, the PGO looks like a pic of a nice car, with the borders of the pic squeezed down to make the car appear to have cartoonish dimensions (kinda like the joke mirrors at a carnival).

 

Thats what I got out of it. I'm just saying... 

Not crazy about the mirrors or tall head rests , either. All that and it still looks like it has plexy side curtains.

 

Edit: I guess elec. windows are available.  The coupe is some ugly IMHO.

Hi Troy,

 

Maybe I didn't explain it properly, or my old brain is addled.  For a time, you and Theron had a situation where your pics, at least when viewed on my screen, were larger than full width, meaning you had to scroll left/right to read the accompanying text.

 

You guys would discuss options, but I never understood it.  Then, for a few months at least, your car pics would appear on my screen as shrunken.  They would fit without scrolling, but had the characteristic exaggeration of a photo changed from another format.  Sorry, I wasn't making a derogatory remark about your camera skills.

Web sites can be created using what is known as RWD (responsive web design), which in essence scales automatically pages to work, with any device you may be using ie  laptop, desktop, smartphone etc.  For specifics, just Google RWD.  Perhaps that is what Theron and Troy were discussing.

Hi Jim.

I don't think we have ever met, but I know you well enough from your posts that I know you were not making a derogatory comment.  I just couldn't imagine what it was you were talking about.

Now, I vaguely recall what you are talking about.  I think it was something to do with the new SOC website when we switched over and Theron must have fixed it because I didn't do anything different with my pictures.

I don't see your name on the SLO list, so I guess we still will not be meeting anytime soon.  That's too bad, we would all love to see your car!

I guess I agree with just about everybody; it's too busy. The lines of the car have been lost. Jim's and Noel's comments about hit it.

 

Here we go - I couldn't resist...

 

 

 

For what it is worth. Porsche owns the name. They do not own the design of the Speedster or the name. We would not have our cars if they had protected the design. The builders cannot use Porsche's name hence their own branding. That of course helps establish their own branding as well. We associate different styles and quality to the various "brand" builders of these fun toys. 

Patent law is complex.  It is also federal, since the US Constitution specifically addresses patent protection, thus removing the subject from the vagaries of state law.  Design patents, such as the Coca-Cola bottle, Statue of Liberty, and other iconic shapes, are issued for 14 years.  They can also be registered under the Lanham Act with Federal Trademark Registration, valid for 10 years, and renewable at 10-year increments. 

 

Porsche has chosen not to enforce or litigate trade dress concerns for the Speedster shape and design.  Other manufacturers, such as Ferrari, Bentley, and Mercedes Benz, have aggressively used the federal courts to pursue alleged trademark infringements.  See 944 F.2d 1235 (6th Cir. 1991).  They have been almost universally successful.  Porsce has chosen to pursue alleged name infringements, so that even manufacturers of t-shirts with the Porsche logo have received cease and desist letters from attorneys hired by Porsche.

 

Some shapes don't even have to be registered to be considered protected, if they are iconic, or so well-known as to indicate exclusivity.  That is what the term "trade dress" refers to.  If the design has acquired a well-known secondary meaning, it figuratively takes on a life of its own.  Such iconic and well-known designs have been protected by the federal court, irrespective of the existence or expiration of patent status.

 

We are fortunate that Porsche has not used litigation to force the issue.  Indeed, Ferdinand Porsche was one of the named defendants (as designer) in a 1938 suit against VW, brought by Tatra, which alleged stolen design.  Perhaps that early experience has influenced the corporate stance on patents.  For whatever reason, Porsche seems content to stop the replica makers from badging our replicas as Porsche products, a small price to pay for replica ownership.   

Jim;

 

Thank you for that brief.  The last sentence is the most important to me.  I also believe that Porsche has a different approach. Am I going to ever a buyer of a 356 or even a new 911, not likely, so why penalize me?  Further, marketing is all about exposure, take advantage of all the free images you can.

 

Thanks for the concise comments.

 

Art

My guess is the legal battle against replicas would be far to expensive vs the revenue stream for very expensive licensed Porsche logo stuff we all buy for our toys.