Chevy in a Cobra

[OnyxRider]

Exactly!!!! Like I've stated before don't say something online that you wouldn't say in person.

And on that note I faltered once here calling MrMustang delusional when he came at me. I couldn't find the thread but I do apologize for that one.

Originally Posted by mdross1

I'm 100% certain most everyone here wants to get along after all we are like minded in our choices of body styles at least when it comes muscle cars. I truly enjoy being around and talking with hot rodders no matter what they build or drive.

The problem I see here is we are not face to face so it is impossible to read some of the responders and the way they choose to word their threads. When we read something that hits a nerve it is next to impossible not to fire back.

We all come from different parts of the world, different backrounds, building skill levels, dedication to originality, income levels, the list goes on. What I choose for a means of getting that Cobra experience should having nothing to do with its underpinnings or credentials. Those that choose to put themselves above that hope it makes them happy.
In the end isn't it the way of the world, sure hope the day never comes we all need huge fences around our homes. We sure have to be vigilant when it comes to our choice of politicians, losing so many middle class scares the heck out of me. We may need a lot more than fences to protect us.

Ummm can I get a cliff notes version sent to my secretary so I can respond.
Basically I wrote this to show a certain someone the choice words used, joke absurd...

AND because I thought Thor would get a kick mentioning Chevy...

Having said that if you want to play in the sandbox boys please bring some sand with you. Thing is Evan the difference is knowing when someone is being an asshole and being clueless of being one. You brought the asshole term into the thread not I and opinions of other members statements.
And Al you are so silly I'm hiding now....I don't read everything on this board...actually very little.


Now then since I just glanced over most of the posts does Evan still not understand he owns a replica?

I stated it in simple terms, not for anyone else. I write for myself mostly...

The term "other" is for my use. Enjoy what you have.

But I do wish terms like ERA Cobra, Kirkham Cobra,... could be used instead of Cobra.

Now no one is going to understand this because you don't have my experiences as I don't have yours. Ever since Bugatti placed personal info in their owners club over 50+ years ago my family has not provided any information to outside sources on ownership of the family's vehicle's.

On another note... when I left the military in the late '80's and created a unique company which re-created my mentor's red cell group, posting a picture of a car we own would go against basic principles that we live by and those protocols we advised our clients.

From time to time over the decades some people do "stupid ****" and there have been threats to some degree, but hell if I'm going to make it easier for anyone. I already posted a picture of my brothers 289 and if you missed it well too bad. It was mixed in with a bunch of others. I'm not here for your entertainment. Hopefully when I do get into histories you may learn something.

Now here's something of interest and Shelby should have done this instead of being deceptive with CSX 3056?- CSX 3099 and stating he had some left-over tubs.

Jaguar in the 1960' produced a lightweight version of their E-Type for private racers. Briggs Cunningham raced 3 of these models at Lemans in 1963. All but one was aluminum bodied. Jaguar assigned 18 chassis numbers but only produced 12 race cars. Now 50 years later Jag's Heritage division is producing the remaining six vehicles. This is a first for Jaguar. They will be built exactly to the same specs as 1960's. Hopefully this will be an excellent possible vintage race car.


Now would you call this a lightweight E type, replica, or continuation, or all three? Sorry just confused with all the definitions being quoted by......


Just remember "The loudest one in the room is usually the weakest in the room."

OK carry on....

[AL427SBF]

Originally Posted by OnyxRider

... I'm not here for your entertainment ...

No? I find you highly entertaining, just like nyg only rooting for the other side.

carry on ...

[Jamo]

I'd call them a reissue with some DNA attached. I mean, would you call an SS a D-Type just because of the chassis?

The watch world uses the phrase "reissue" when they bring out modern reproductions of heritage models (as I try to type while lifting this freeking ploprof chunk)...seems to me that might be a good name for the modern CSX's.

[ItBites]

On that note, maybe Evan will change his moniker to.... Wait for it.... Wait... Wait...

Reissue1

[Jamo]

Thx...coffee spewed on keyboard

[AL427SBF]

Originally Posted by rodneym

Ah, ha!!

Are these the makings of a new poll?

I, for one, care. Don't live or die by it, but I care.

rodneym, I think that is a great idea. I also think this being an off-the-cuff idea that you came up with, and appearing to have a balanced view of it, that would make you an ideal candidate to set it up.

[RodKnock]

Wait a second. Another poll? Are you people getting paid by the poll?

[REAL 1]

Originally Posted by ItBites

Charlie Brown is spelled with an 'ie', not 'ey'. I guess SAAC hasn't ruled on that, so your error is understandable. ;D I also guess that would make you Lucy, pulling the footballl away time after time... Never adressing the REAL argument of how far Charlie could kick the ball. Content to persist with self-serving and self-aggrandising behavior.

As far as respecting others and what they own... I've read your posts for over 10 years and respectful of what others own is demonstrably not within in your paradigm, but still amusing to those who like to stir the pot with you.


Still (and just to stir the pot and since Jamo said I could)... No one other than SAAC members and prospective owners of originals gives a rats patootie about what SAAC says or how they define, categorize, or classify anything.

I most respectfully disagree. The problem is you and many take setting forth fact as self aggrandizing behavior while you elevate your own personal views over existing fact in order to deface in essence what you don't own and also want it both ways.

Case in point. Many here deem their car a "Cobra replica" even though it has nothing if anything in Common with a Cobra and in some cases powered by an engine completely antithetical to the essence and heart of what a Cobra is. A Chevy motor. Heck SAACs correct with that definition since it suits your purpose as some here have clearly pointed out. Right? Do you disagree with SAAC on that one? Likely not. You do have a Cobra replica don't you?

Problem comes in when you see SAAC defines the current production Cobras as genuine Cobras. You just can stomach that one.

Truth and fact is if we are going by Webster's you guys don't even own replicas of a Cobra. They don't even rise to that level. I'm not saying it. It's in the dictionary man!

SAAC gives you more than Websters. You don't want what SAAC is defining your cars as fine. Call them fakeydos, frauds, phonies or something else but they ain't replicas according to the dictionary. The CSX is a true replica per the dictionary.

You want SAAC's standards then we apply them across the board.

If you don't give a $hit about SAAC then stop referring to your cars as Cobra replicas cause they are not. They are Cobra imposters, fakeydos, frauds or whatever equivalent adjective you can find.

You can't have it both ways.

Jamo is correct in that the CSXs are re-issues of the original.

I understand perfectly what I own applying either standard of definition. Problem is that others want to apply a different standard to their car and yet a different standard to the current production/reissued Cobras.

SAAC is the worlds leading authority on all things Cobra. To argue otherwise just makes you look silly and/or ignorant. Many give great weight and confidence in what they say and their positions including thousands of members. I'd be willing to bet many on this site purchased a Registry and/or are SAAC members. If you don't care what SAAC says throw the Registry in the garbage.

If SAAC's definitions were to your liking you would be beating the new Cobras into the dust with it every chance you had.

Sorry about misspelling Charlie Brown I don't read the comics.

[Thor maine]

Bawhomp whomt blah whomp saac whomp whomp , whaaaaaaaa.

[buddyg]

Real1

Same crap yesterday
Same crap today
Same crap tomorrow

Blah, blah , blah

[Jamo]

Originally Posted by buddyg

Real1

Same crap yesterday
Same crap today
Same crap tomorrow

Blah, blah , blah

Second call...be nice.

Look, you have a choice...you don't have to read Evan's posts.

Evan, on the other hand, can't help himself.

[mdross1]

Originally Posted by Jamo

Second call...be nice.

Look, you have a choice...you don't have to read Evan's posts.

Evan, on the other hand, can't help himself.

We hear the first one,

Most certainly agree with the next two.

Seems we now have another way of belittling our replica members the Websters. This is not how we want to get along.

[REAL 1]

Gentlemen: I am not trying nor is it my intention to belittle anyone's car with Websters. However, you can not have it both ways by taking what you like from one standard and applying a different standard to something else just to make you feel better and at the same time demean something else or debased it without being unfair and inconsistent. That's the point I am trying to make clear but many of you only hear what you want to hear and either don't get it or do and don't care.

Mdross1 obviously finds the use of Websters insulting to define your cars. I get it. Just as Continuation owners are insulted (and they are as I get PMs from many) when you demean what they own by saying they are "only replicas", "the only real ones were in the 60s" etc..

The way this hobby and car and industry around it have changed and evolved and the publics misuse of the Webster's definition has developed SAACs definitions and categories are fair, correct and well reasoned to comport with existing facts and circumstances. You can't take what you like from SAAC and toss the out as to others.

I have no problem applying Websters to the Contiuation Cobras. But we then apply it to your cars and that you won't like.

Btw this topic is related to the OP and slid into when does a car with a Cobra body stop being a replica of a Cobra.

[buddyg]

Originally Posted by Jamo

Second call...be nice.

Look, you have a choice...you don't have to read Evan's posts.

Evan, on the other hand, can't help himself.

Yessum Boss, didn't think I was being mean but I shall cease and desist.

I'm sure Evan is a fine gentlemen, we just disagree on this issue. Evan anytime your in Western Michigan come on by and I will give you a ride in my

COBRA!

[AL427SBF]

Evan, if you can refute the below with "other" factual information, then please do so. No response in 12 hours constitutes your agreement to the stated understandings.
I use to do that a lot at work to keep things moving along

SAAC Registry
CSX Continuation Cobras: Current production Cobras built by Shelby to more less original standards delivered without engine and transmission.

Until the SAAC defines what motor or transmission must go into a CSX Continuation Cobra, a chevy powered automatic is just as valid as a Ford powered standard in a CSX Continuation Cobra. The only discriminator is that these rollers come from SAI.

Kit Car or Replica: Any Car with a body which approximates the original Cobra shape, using any kind frame, suspension, brakes or driveline.

Pretty much beat to death, if your body approximates the original Cobra shape you are in this category regardless of frame, suspension, brakes or driveline.

Webster's
rep·li·ca [rep-li-kuh]
noun
1. a copy or reproduction of a work of art produced by the maker of the original or under his or her supervision.
2. any close or exact copy or reproduction.

Definition 1 defaults to the SAAC definition of CSX Continuation Cobra as it was produced by the maker of the original or under his or her supervision. You get no relief from the chevy powered automatic, it is still a CSX Continuation Cobra. Definition 2 is of no help to anybody, what constitutes "close"? Without criteria to define "close", we are all left twisting in the wind to spin it anyway we want.

Live by the sword, die by the sword ...

[Jerry Clayton]

I'd rather have Holley over Webster carbs any day---Never saw any Websters at any race----

[rodneym]

Originally Posted by AL427SBF

Until the SAAC defines what motor or transmission must go into a CSX Continuation Cobra, a chevy powered automatic is just as valid as a Ford powered standard in a CSX Continuation Cobra. The only discriminator is that these rollers come from SAI.

Well, if SAAC doesn't define the drivetrain, in effect not completely defining what a continuation Cobra is, then who does?

I suppose that would be us, the market!

Now, for all those who care to play, please list my three examples of contunation Cobras by how you (all of us) would value them in the market, from most expensive to least expensive. All rollers are otherwise optioned the same.

1) CSX4000/6000 with FE
2) CSX4000/6000 with Windsor
3) CSX4000/6000 with any other motor (Chevy BB, SB or Iron Duke )

One caviat, all motors would be the same vintage or quality of build. Not comparing a 390FE to a new Cup motor. All three examples would be original, or aftermarket aluminum, etc.

My list would be the order I placed them in.

I'm not trying to stir the pot. If SAAC doesn't define it, then we do with our wallets, no?

[RodKnock]

I smell a poll coming.

There are more polls here than in a presidential election year.

[Jamo]

Indeed...damn near as many as in Poland.

[dallas_]

Originally Posted by rodneym

My list would be the order I placed them in.

That would be my order also.
I expect a high percentage would vote likewise.

As many have said, cost is the primary (not the only!) reason for the other options.