Difference between all these very good expensive replicars (Kirkham – closest to the original, Superformance, Gardner Douglas, Dax, CN – German variation based on Dax Supertube, Hawk, Mohr etc) and the ACs, up to the Mk V, is that the former are replicars, whereas the latter are cars that were engineered and manufactured by a company called AC. Look through the range of cars represented in the ACOC. Up to the Mk V (not yet listed), last and only car beyond the Brooklands Ace, they were produced in a factory run by AC. The Mk V bodywise is an evolution of the 212 S/C. Even the Malta venture however small it was, was a factory owned and run by AC people. Doing engineering, getting successful homologation for market introduction, manufacturing and assembling etc. Even if the few Mk Vs turned out were not totally sorted and work had to be carried out by the distributor before they could be sold.
The Mk VI Gullwing is a completely different story: take an existing good replicar based on the Dax Supertube chassis, which over years has evolved into its latest Mohr variation, the Gullwing venture adding the specific hardtop, make a deal with its producer for rebranding by simply replacing the car’s badges, run an aggressive info campaign by putting the car under the butt of a number of key journalists and make the world believe that this is the new evolutive AC Cobra. Yes it is sold as an AC . People owning the company and the right to the name can do whatever they like.
The market reality will tell whether the car is accepted by customers.
What we at the ACOC have to make our minds up on is whether or not we will accept this car as an AC. I don’t know enough about the club’s bylaws to make a statement on this, but personally I would be disappointed if such rebranded replicar would be regarded an AC as much as the Mk IV & Superblower, Brooklands Ace, Mk IV CRS, 212 S/C, Mk V.
This is an ACOC Forum – and I know it is open to non-ACOC members, so there may be quite different views on this.
Constant/ACOC member since 2002