Hmm. My car is being built, so I've not had a conversation with anyone who is checking it out at the same time, but I already have difficulty explaining to people what it is. The words "kit" and "real" already pop up just talking about the genre.
Unfortunately, the word "kit" has a lot of negative connotations. A "kit" is used to make a little plastic model. A "kit" is used to vainly try to turn a miata into a cobra or a fiero into a ferrari. Maybe the industry should find a different word to define a bunch of components that when put together become a vehicle. Heck, Ford could sell you all the parts to make a Mustang and that would be a kit. You'd still end up with the same thing that comes out of the factory.
Superformance builds their car from a "kit", just like any FFR owner does. The only difference is who built it, and what the components are, which have nothing to do with whether or not it is a "kit". Maybe we should start using the terms "self-built" and "factory-built" instead of "kit" or whatever. The components they're made from are different, but they're still component cars, and the group of components could be called a "kit".
Also, the word "real" is basically useless. I think the word "original" is better. An SAI built today is "authentic", but it's not "original". Any Cobra replica that Shelby officially markets as a Cobra is "authentic", no matter what the components are or where they come from. It's still a replica, and it's not "original".
Whenever someone asks if it's "real", they should be informed that it is "real" but it's not "original". If it's a replica, of course. If it's an SAI replica, it is "real" and "authentic" and "a Cobra", but it's not "original". If it actually is an original Cobra, they should be informed that it is "real" and "authentic" and "a Cobra" and "original".
