Continuation CSX a "Kit car"?

[01yelrt]

According to the BMV in Indiana anyway all component, replica or otherwise not production based vehicles are KIT CARS. It really is a matter of symantics but they are officially kit cars in my state. I agree with all the other posts that they are fun, exciting, real, Cobras! Don't let the label dictate the level of enjoyment.

[Kzof]

Originally Posted by tmareina

Bottom line...if it wasn't made by Shelby before 1968 then it is not Original, as his last year of initial production was 1967 (I almost bought one in 1967...too bad so sad). Anything after that is a replica...no matter who made it. You'll obviously get more on resale if your replica was made by Shelby...but it is still a replica. Are they all Real? I say YES.

Tom

Agreed and I DO own a CSX

[Nedsel]

I'm not about to open up a fresh can of worms by commenting on the main issue here, because I do not own a continuation, kit, replica, or other form of car being discussed. However, I will point out that, in response to the question "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" all it takes is some basic thought to determine it had to be the rooster. Just trying to help.

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by Nedsel

"Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" all it takes is some basic thought to determine it had to be the rooster. Just trying to help.

Uh-huh, surely you remember from high school that the chicken evolved from egg-laying reptiles....

[RedCSX1]

Originally Posted by mrmustang

Well, yes, and no, in the 60's you could title (MSO, whatever) don't you think they should be marketed as 2000-2008 Shelby Cobras instead of 1965 Shelby Cobras (as listed on their MSO's and literature)? Again it's more a marketing ploy than anything else, if you buy in to it, great, but do not expect everyone else to blindly follow along.

Bill S.

Bill,
I have my Shelby Cobra listed or insured as a 2004 Shelby Cobra.
Several have confused it on paper as a Mustang Cobra.

[mrmustang]

Originally Posted by RedCSX1

Bill,
I have my Shelby Cobra listed or insured as a 2004 Shelby Cobra.
Several have confused it on paper as a Mustang Cobra.

Hey Morgan,

It really depends on the state the car is first titled in. Such states as Florida and Virginia title them as the year they replicate. States such as NJ/NY/PA/CA title them as the year they are first being titled (IE: 2008 for the current year)......However, when they are bought from SAI, the MSO's that I have seen list them as 1965's, when in fact they were produced just last year. Again the Shelby machine is doing a wonderful job of marketing them as "1965's", but the reality of it all is that they are not. Shelby does make a wonderful recreation of the original, there is no doubt about it, but to call them anything but "recreations" is a slap in the face to all of those who own original "built in the 60's" Cobras.......


Bill S.

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by mrmustang

but to call them anything but "recreations" is a slap in the face to all of those who own original "built in the 60's" Cobras.......

Bill S.

No Bill, they are real. Just as real as the $5 Rolex my youngest bought in Manhattan last month. Do I have to call that a "recreation time piece?"

[Power Surge]

Originally Posted by mrmustang

However, when they are bought from SAI, the MSO's that I have seen list them as 1965's, when in fact they were produced just last year. Again the Shelby machine is doing a wonderful job of marketing them as "1965's", but the reality of it all is that they are not..

Well now, wait a second... that's not entirely true. The Shelby MSO lists the MODEL of the car as a 1965 Cobra 427, but it ALSO states the date and year of manufacture. And it ALSO states that as as per that date, this is the first transfer of this vehicle from the manufacturer to public hands.

If you want to alter the facts and omit the rest of the MSO, then yes, they are marketing them as 1965 cars. But the actual MSO specifically states the date of manufacture and that the vehicle has not been seen public hands before that date.

[Power Surge]

Originally Posted by patrickt

No Bill, they are real. Just as real as the $5 Rolex my youngest bought in Manhattan last month. Do I have to call that a "recreation time piece?"

Was your $5 Rolex MADE by Rolex?

I didn't think so.

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by Power Surge

Was your $5 Rolex MADE by Rolex?

I didn't think so.

Yes, the fella swore it was. Gotta MSO and everything.

[Power Surge]

Originally Posted by patrickt

Yes, the fella swore it was. Gotta MSO and everything.

Now you're just being stupid.

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by Power Surge

Now you're just being stupid.

Ya think?

[CSX 4039]

Originally Posted by patrickt

Bill, some people just hate it when you jump on the truth....

I think the '65 title thing started as a reaction to emission laws, not a marketing ploy. Generally, for most cars, I have no increased desire to by an older car than a newer model, if for no other reason then the older car has lower resale.

Just my $0.02

[mrmustang]

Originally Posted by Power Surge

Well now, wait a second... that's not entirely true. The Shelby MSO lists the MODEL of the car as a 1965 Cobra 427, but it ALSO states the date and year of manufacture. And it ALSO states that as as per that date, this is the first transfer of this vehicle from the manufacturer to public hands.

If you want to alter the facts and omit the rest of the MSO, then yes, they are marketing them as 1965 cars. But the actual MSO specifically states the date of manufacture and that the vehicle has not been seen public hands before that date.

Sal,

The problem arises because they use "1965" in their description under model. If the description read "Cobra 427" I do not think the marketing ploy that CSI currently uses would be as effective. Is the car really a "1965 Cobra 427", clearly no.......So why bother to add the year in the description except to muddy the waters just a bit. As a further knock, where do you think Unique got all of their ideas from, yup, you guessed it CSI/CSL.


Bill S.

[Got the Bug]

Originally Posted by mrmustang

Hey Morgan,

Shelby does make a wonderful recreation of the original, there is no doubt about it, but to call them anything but "recreations" is a slap in the face to all of those who own original "built in the 60's" Cobras.......


Bill S.

These threads are always a great read. "Is to, is not, is to, prove it, wanna fight."

It's kind of like die hard Republicans vs. die hard Democrats. You can talk until you're blue in the face, but you aren't going to move the other person to your side. Agree with Bill's comment 100%...and I would agree even if I owned a CSX car.

[Power Surge]

Originally Posted by mrmustang

Sal,

The problem arises because they use "1965" in their description under model. If the description read "Cobra 427" I do not think the marketing ploy that CSI currently uses would be as effective. Is the car really a "1965 Cobra 427", clearly no.......So why bother to add the year in the description except to muddy the waters just a bit. As a further knock, where do you think Unique got all of their ideas from, yup, you guessed it CSI/CSL.


Bill S.

I don't see how this is a "marketing ploy". You are talking about the MSO. This is a piece of paper, that the customer doesn't even get usually until after they even take delivery of the car.

As for "why" is says 1965.... many states require that. Some states register the car as the year it represents. Like all things legal, they'd need more than what you tell them to use for a date.

And for what it's worth, my FFR MSO said 1965, and I am quite certain my KMP one did too.

[Excaliber]

I don't think it's a 'marketing ploy' either, it's more like a statement of fact, the car is patterned after a 1965 Shelby Cobra. Hawaii law also will list the car as to what it REPRESENTS.

To call it a 2008 Cobra MODEL would be completely misleading.

[CSX 4039]

Originally Posted by mrmustang

Hey Morgan,

It really depends on the state the car is first titled in. Such states as Florida and Virginia title them as the year they replicate. States such as NJ/NY/PA/CA title them as the year they are first being titled (IE: 2008 for the current year)......However, when they are bought from SAI, the MSO's that I have seen list them as 1965's, when in fact they were produced just last year. Again the Shelby machine is doing a wonderful job of marketing them as "1965's", but the reality of it all is that they are not. Shelby does make a wonderful recreation of the original, there is no doubt about it, but to call them anything but "recreations" is a slap in the face to all of those who own original "built in the 60's" Cobras.......


Bill S.

SAAC itself call them "authentic" vs. "original".
Do you disagree with SAAC? (Which is made up largely of owners of "original" cars).

[Jamo]

This thread underscores the basis for my comment in the other thread that it takes a treatise to assplain what a modern CSX is...

[mrmustang]

Originally Posted by CSX 4039

SAAC itself call them "authentic" vs. "original".
Do you disagree with SAAC? (Which is made up largely of owners of "original" cars).

I agree 100% that they are authentic Shelby licensed reproductions of the original 60's built versions . Never said they were not authentic Shelby products, just not original Cobras (as built in the 60's). Someone else tell me when the merry-go-round ride stops as I'm starting to get dizzy .


Bill S.