[Dangerous Doug]

Ah, I do see a few squirming over the term "kit" in this discussion. I see the CSX guys and the SPF guys are already distancing themselves from the "kit" term---if a "kit" doesn't mean as little as just adding an engine and transmission. Based on that, an ERA "roller" would also not be a "kit", and neither would a Kirkham. Nor, for that matter, any "roller" produced Cobra.

I think what happens is car enthusiasts see the ubiquitous Factory Five Racing advertisements in every automobile magazine and when looking at a Cobra wonder if they are looking at one of those advertised "kits".

To me the term reminds me of the early electronics "kits" or of the VW-based Bradley or Sterling, and not something I regard as having much in terms of quality and road-worthiness---especially when they "chirp" like a VW.

I think my Cobra has more similarity to an old Corvette than anything else: fiberglass body, V8, built on a frame (not a VW pan...) with IRS, disks all around, et cetera. Sure, I built quite a bit of it, but the build took quite a while and wasn't as simple as a "kit".

So, for the 1% that DO ask if it's a "kit", I think I'll simply reply, "I'm not sure the term "kit" accurately describes this car." If they ask why, I'll describe what's under the skin and talk about building it, and let them decide for themselves.

Most people seem genuinely impressed. As for John and Jane Doe from my initial post, well, I'll let them continue with their "eminence front"* charade. I know better.

DD

Real1: "The originals were "kits" based upon your definition?" You're trying a little too hard, don't you think? Is it possible to have a thread not evolve into the "real" vs. "replica" vs. "original" bare-knuckle fist fight?

DD

* For those of you that need help on this one, read the lyrics to The Who's "Eminence Front"