Originally Posted by dino_gt
Hi guys;
Here goes my opinion as well;
I wouldn´t consider the JH classics a bad replica, but I understand that something happened in the production of these replicas over the years, causing discrepancies between the very first moulds/units produced and the later ones.
First of all let´s make clear one thing that´s been said but I think that it has to be remarked:
The JH classics replica is a dino 206 and not a 246 dino replica.
Therefore, the wheelbase is shorter by 60mm and the number of air vents of the engine cover is 6 instead of 7 on the 246, among other differences.
The original 206 dino was an all aluminum bodywork hand built in the late 60´s and, therefore, as many other italian cars of the time, asymmetrical.
We can however consider all this measuring stuff, but the truth is that if you get to see one real 206 it´s probably going to be as “bad” as the replica is.
Even the later 246 are, as well, asymmetrical, specially doors. Remember that these cars were made between 1969 and 1973. The same happened with other alfas and maseratis of that time.
Only 152 units of the 206 were ever made, which makes it even more valuable than other Dinos, being originals sold for 200,000 US dollars nowadays. There were only 7 of these cars ever imported in the UK and they were all left hand drive.
Finally there is, to my knowledge, at least one 206 dino made with a removable roof, although with the rear quarter glass in place, like the GT, which is very rare and interesting.
I´ve been working with my car for 3 years now. One mistake made at the start was to consider the 246 as a reference to do the job. Today, I´m completely sure that it is not the way to go, although you can decide to transform the car into a 246, which is another possibility.
I personally prefer to stand as close to the original 206 as possible because this is the car that was copied at the start.
I have talked to David myrelees and John Hurst from JH classics, the men involved in the copying of the original 206 and I believe they made a good job. If you take a look at David myrelees´ car you can see how close it is to the real 206, it is almost identical.
However, it is true that, for some reason, that Deons have some differences from the original 206. We have corrected almost all of them in my car by now, as far as it was possible.
However, I think some of the most important are still not mentioned here. In my opinion, these are the most important:
-The width of the car: the deon is wider than the original, causing the wheels to look “pulled in” the bodyshell.
-The lower nose and lower rear end panels: These are missing. They didn´t copy these parts and are not present on the JH classics moulds.
-The dropped nose.
There are more, but these are probably the most important. However, regarding the dropped nose and wider bodyshell, it is not a problem of the moulds, but just the way the bodyshell was finished, when fabricating the inner tub and fitting it to the chassis, forgetting about the correct dimensions.
So I believe we have to separate the next 3 things, before judging the JH classics Dino:
-The asymmetries on the original car (which was never crashed, as some people say)
- The wrong finishing of the fiberglass bodyshell on the chassis.
-The missing or altered panels on the moulds.
In my opinion, the first one can´t be considered as a fault of the replica. The second one, causing dropped nose and wider bodyshell can be fixed (not a minor thing however) and the third one is really a fault in making the moulds, but it is also possible to modify.
One last thought: let´s not criticize and devalue our cars because they are probably not that bad as we may think…In fact, which other replica of a true 206 Dino has ever been made? I don´t know any other. Think about it.
Cheers everyone, and enjoy your cars/work.
Dino-GT
|