Also of interest is this Facebook comment from a friend of mine in the USA, Kev Elliott, who used to work with Singer:
"Shame Porsche didn’t go further. You know my hands-on history with Singer Porsches and why In my opinion a good third of them are not fit for road use. Older ones that are actually driven are already falling apart.
They may be fine as expensive pieces of mobile jewellery (and as such are admittedly exquisite), but they are really the ultimate exercise in turd polishing, moreso if you’re the unlucky owner of one of those built on a twisted and unrepaired body shell prior to the carbon fiber panels being bonded in place, with panel gaps then sanded to appear correct."
I guess Porsche benefits as they are a form of halo model that adds to the brand value. Perhaps there are limits on what they can do themselves with low volume cars & still make a profit. Why make another 959 as a halo model (which was sold at a loss) when you can sub-contract instead?
I also wonder why they are okay with Ruf creating an entirely new car design with zero Porsche parts that clearly is a 911 copy.
I guess they see it as a necessity. At one end of the scale, if someone sells a restored 911 with a set of their own design wheels, there is nothing that could be done to stop that. At the other end of the scale someone creates a completely new car that copies a Porsche & that is reasonable to stop. So somewhere between those two points, Porsche needs to draw a line & say that’s the point where we have a problem.
Porsche remind Singer not to take the p155 and Kev says restomod cars built in sheds by hand aren’t as good as ones built by major manufacturers in factories by zillion euro robots using lasers.
I'm with Sam.
No real big deal is it?
The Singer product is great, looks etc and spec and performance all good otherwise there would not be a buyer in sight at the price.
I would say a carbon tub is a move too far, RUF included, from the sheet steel of the Real Deal but that is hidden away.
Good publicity mind!
73T 911 Coupe, road/hillclimber 3.2L
Lola t 492 / 3.2 hillclimb racer
Boxster 987 Gen II 2.9
I'm not expert on commercial law, but could it be that a Ruf is marketed as a Ruf whereas Singer was Porsche reimagined by Singer. So essentially they were using the Porsche brand, which I believe has been removed from all Singers marketing material. Or maybe they just like Ruf
Jonny
Current custodian of 1976 Porsche 912E, 1973 VW Camper
It seems that what Singer began was a commercial restyling exercise, that has morphed into a substantial redesign, presumably to keep finding a usp.....Porsche should keep a close eye and issue the occasional swapped wrist, it is their IP and their reputation when a Singer weilding moron mows down a school bus queue.
Of course over here a Singer, in common with so many of 'our' cars, would fall foul of the DVLA/VOSA rules and be a 'radically altered vehicle' and probably aquire a Q plate if they found out.......
Winston
'61 356 BT5 & a lot of broken chain driven stuff
Winston Teague wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2024 1:46 pmOf course over here a Singer, in common with so many of 'our' cars, would fall foul of the DVLA/VOSA rules and be a 'radically altered vehicle' and probably aquire a Q plate if they found out.......
They may be fine as expensive pieces of mobile jewellery (and as such are admittedly exquisite), but they are really the ultimate exercise in turd polishing
I couldn't agree more. I see nothing in "re-imagining". On the contrary, IMHO it's a lack of imagination combined with a whole lot of bling. The ridiculous price to me seems just a way to discourage someone to call out that the Emperor wears no clothes. It is expensive, so therefore must be cool.
