We came across a nice Superbird on eBay recently, and the bid at the time was just over 35 Gs. The car looked great, and it was a clean build, but it was a clone. So that brought up some interesting conversation: if you can’t afford the real thing, is it okay to clone the car?

Of course, you’re entitled to do what you want, and you don’t owe it to anyone – not even a purist car collector – to keep the car you want to drive all-original. Some people look at this as blasphemy, sacrilege, and down right offensive. Some people.

But those people can typically afford the “real thing”, or they are so pure in their pursuits of the American dream that they seem to forget that we don’t drive the cars everyone else wants, we drive the car we want.

With some of the latest musclecars going to auction and getting astronomical prices, they’re no longer an investment. They are purely a showpiece, owned for bragging rights instead of sharing with the rest of us, because they get stored away until the new owner decides to sell it to the next person who has an empty spot in their massive car collection.

The Plymouth Road Runner we found began life as a standard, run of the mill Road Runner, but it was rebuilt with a 440 ci mill and four-speed transmission. The reserve hasn’t been met with just over a day left, and we’re not sure how high that even goes. The car looks great, but the price is getting up there for a Road Runner.

It’s a runner, alright, and would be lots of fun. Oh, and they added those funky aero-thingys that they used to remove from the Superbird in 1970, making it look like a regular Road Runner just so they could sell the car. Kind of an ironic twist, isn’t it?

So what do you think? Is cloning perfectly acceptable when you can’t afford to get a real ‘Bird? Some people are furious over this current “upbadging” practice, but does it really matter? Share your thoughts below; would you buy a clone, and would you be up front about it or let people think you have the real thing?