Real vs. Replica, Classic Motorsports Magazine Sept issue

[Jamo]

gracias

[Russ Dickey]

Great article and I want to commend Jim Maxwell on submitting his original for it. I really enjoy this magazine for it's content and awesome photographs.

Now with that out of the way, here's my beef: why can't one of these magazines do a REAL comparison of an original vs. a replica, where the cars are prepared with the same engines, same transmissions, same gearing, same wheel/tire setup, etc?

You find one original Cobra owner like Jim who is willing to submit his car for the test. The original doesn't have to be 100% stock, but should probably be close. Then you approach each replica manufacturer and have them submit a car that is built to the same specs as that original. Same engine specs must be used, same transmission, same gearing, same wheel/tire combo (or at least same size, brand, and model of tire). Heck, you could even have one engine shop build the engines for all of the replicas, so that they are all as close as possible.

In fact, to avoid "ringers" that might be built and submitted by the replica companies themselves, you could have one independent shop build them all. That way, they could give detailed pros and cons of constructing each. Each one would be built as closely as possible to the original car used in the comparison, but could come with whatever "top of the line" suspension or brake options are offered by the kit manufacturer. And they would build it using just the regular assembly manual that comes with each kit, without any "creative engineering" tricks and tactics that might be used to give the car an unfair advantage.

And after the cars are all built, you do a Car & Driver style road test. The exact same drivers have to drive them all. Then and only then could we ever see a truly accurate comparison of real vs. replica.

[REAL 1]

Russ Dickey's point is well made. I agree. That would have been a more interesting read.

[Don]

The AACA ( Antique Automobile Club of America ) recognizes the Continuation series in their SGCV ( Second Generation Collector Vehicles ) Class. The SGCV Class definition is in the Judging Guidelines on page 53. Note the comments by the AACA Vice President of Class Judging at the end of this Reply. While there may be, I am not aware of any other vehicle having been accepted by the AACA in their SGCV Class

From the Judging Guidelines, caps are actually used in the Guidelines

" THE AACA DOES NOT ACCEPT "KIT CAR"VEHICLES."

http://www.aaca.org/publications/200...Guidelines.pdf

Excerpts from previous correspondence with the AACA Vice President of Class Judging:

************************************

RE: Second Generation Collector Vehicles

I am referencing the article on page14 of the November/December edition of Antique Automobile regarding SGCV.

In the Shelby 2007 Annual titled Shelby, there is an article regarding the various Cobra models offered by Shelby Automobiles along with the CSX Numbering Systems-enclosed.

Quotes from the article:

" Shelby Automobiles is still building brand new Cobras today "

" Built in pretty much the same configuration as the classic Cobra in the '6os, each car comes with a Shelby serial number with a CSX-series VIN "

When these vehicles are 25 years old, will they qualify as an AACA SGCV ?

**************************************


" Please take note of the first sentence of my reply stating that when the Cobra's produced by Caroll Shelby reach 25 years of age from date of manufacture they will qualify as an AACA SGCV under today's description of the class.

.................the Cobra being produced by Caroll Shelby I am pleased to inform you that this vehicle would qualify for the SGCV class upon reaching 25 years of age from date of manufacturing.

I would suggest you acquire the following documentation from the manufacturer upon purchase and preserve it with the vehicle.

1- Certificate of Origin
2- Vehicle Build Sheet
3- Production Order
These should be supplied by the manufacturer and kept with the vehicle as verification of its authenticity as a factory built vehicle.
Thanks,

Hulon C. McCraw
VP Class Judging

[JWilly]

I am looking forward to the article but as with others, I have only been able to find the July issue. As an SPF owner, I readily accept that my car is not a Shelby Cobra. I also readily accept the fact thar modern CSX cars are indeed, rightfully, Shelby Cobras. Although I have not read the article yet, I highly doubt the mag set out to prove that somehow the SPF is a better car than CSX cars. I am also certain they did not, in fact, "prove" that the SPF product is better than the CSX product. What I hope they did do (for my sake) is establish that the SPF is a car worth owning.

One other thing, for what it's worth, there is a difference (at least to me) between "manufactored under the license of Carroll Shelby, International" and "I endorse this product because I like it".

[madmaxx]

why can't one of these magazines do a REAL comparison of an original vs. a replica, where the cars are prepared with the same engines, same transmissions, same gearing, same wheel/tire setup, etc?

Easy answer $$$$$$$$$$$$

[mrmustang]

Originally Posted by Russ Dickey

In fact, to avoid "ringers" that might be built and submitted by the replica companies themselves, you could have one independent shop build them all. That way, they could give detailed pros and cons of constructing each. Each one would be built as closely as possible to the original car used in the comparison, but could come with whatever "top of the line" suspension or brake options are offered by the kit manufacturer. And they would build it using just the regular assembly manual that comes with each kit, without any "creative engineering" tricks and tactics that might be used to give the car an unfair advantage.

Russ,

Great idea, you come up with the cash and the kits (whoever gets to build the motors can do them knowing that they are not each assigned to a specific chassis, just that they are for the test), I'll find you the right builder that I'm sure will step up to the plate.


Bill S.

[JWilly]

Oops I hit "post rely" too soon... I have no problem with the modern CSX cars being accepted into the AACA SGCV as Shelby Cobras, when they are 25 yrs old. That is exactly as it should be. But I do not think SPF are "kit cars" in that they can only be ourchased as a rolling chassis which is manufactored. Aren't the modern CSX cars also purchased as a rolling chassis, of which, at least some are actually manufactored by the same company as SPF? Maybe, in 25 yrs SPF can be registered in the AACA SGCV as an SPF (not as a shelby cobra). whaddayathink?

[Buzz]

by professor Squatt Twatt (Scott Ott's uncle) as published by Rotters News Agency.

In reference to racing sanctioning, what may (and probably should) happen a few years down the road when these issues are brought to the table (non-hypothetically, that is) is that there will be a general consensus on a "Cobra class", formula or type of vehicle encompassing the various incarnations of the Cobra that were manufactured by various entities at different times. This umbralla classification would cover the AC and Shelby cars - old and new, Autokrafts, Auroras and quite possibly the manufactured rollers like SPF, etc. This would apply strictly for the purpose of acceptance or sanctioning by whatever the governing body that oversees vintage racing happens to be at the time. Ford's nose will be initially bent out of shape over the wording but they will be tolerant as long as manufacturers other than Shelby are not badging and selling the cars as Cobras.

It will not be intended as a definition per se of what constitutes an authentic Cobra, but it will inevitably result in some level of prestige and perceived distinction in the marketplace (officially NOT a kit car).

Perceptually and subjectively, but non relevant to the sanctioning, the pecking order that exists today within that group will remain largely unchanged with the original Shelby and AC cars in an accepted position of distinction, connected to the others only as a matter of semantics. Continuation Shelbys followed at a distance by latter day AC's and Autokrafts will be another unofficial sub-group with all others falling in line according to perceptions of pedigree.

The interesting part will no doubt hashing out what exactly constitutes a "Cobra-class vehicle". The originals and continuations will certainly be the benchmark, but how much variance on the theme will be tolerated when classifying the other "manufactured Cobras"?

[Excaliber]

Lets not leave out the Excaliburs! Never a kit car, never a roller, manufactured and sold as a DOT and Federally approved 'car'.

[REAL 1]

JWilly: SPFs are get cars and tremedous value for the buck IMHO. I would definitely own one.

Russ: Russ your comments are great. Mr. Mustangs response is silly. There are enough SPFs around that I am sure the magazine could source a SPF out for a compro with the same engine as an original. You can leave the suspension stock and compare stock original to stock replica with same power train. I'm sure there would be plenty of SPF owners willing to have their car in the magazine.

Oinie: Excaliburs are great cars. At least I think so. I owned one. There are some "racers" that make fun of the Excalibur but hey they know more then waxers so who are we to say.

Problem with the Excaliburs is as you know the 5.0 engine and the extented wheelbase. Not a good compro.

Don: Thanks for your post.

[Excaliber]

I don't know, a modern CSX built to original specs vs an original Cobra built to the SAME specs might be kind of a boreing read. The SPF was a good call, because it's such a popular car, getting ANY original car to compare it to is no doubt problematic. In that regard, they done good, an interesting comparison.

An Excal or an Aurora? I'm not sure such a test would achieve the magazines ultimate goal, sell paper and advertising! Such a comparison would be a major yawn factor in my opinion. An Autokraft? Perhaps not well known/understood enough by the larger community of automotive enthusiasts to be note worthy, but THAT would be an interesting test to me.

[Don]

For the AACA to consider any vehicle for acceptance into the SGCV Class, documentation supporting the request must be submitted for their review:

AACA Vice President Class Judging
Hulon C McCraw
101 Dausuel Trail
Hendersonville, NC 28791

The SGCV Class definition is in the Judging Guidelines on page 53, which can be found at:

http://www.aaca.org/publications/200...Guidelines.pdf

[JWilly]

After reading the guidelines Don linked us to, I am curious exactly what their definition of "manufactured car" is...Does it include a car bought as manufactured rolling chassis?

Buzz...don't have a problem with any part of your post, however, I try not to speculate on the future too much, you can go broke that way.

[Dangerous Doug]

In regard to the article about Cobras: real vs. replica: the take aways I got I'm pretty sure we all agree with, and that is a) having an original Cobra from the 60's is the ultimate Cobra to own, though you are somewhat limited as a custodian of a historical artifact; b) having a wicked Cobra replica is pretty *****'n too, and you don't have to worry quite as much about custodianship, and can change it to fit your needs without a pain of conscience.

I'm thrilled with my replica (and it doesn't even run yet...), but if I had the dough for an original, early 1960's Cobra, yeah, I'd buy it.

DD

[ZOERA-SC7XX]

Getting back to the original question about performance differences, the new car should almost always outperform the old car. Every car made has different engine capabilities, but handling qualities of the new replicas (any quality replica) are probably much superior to the original due to modern engineering, build techniques and chassis geometry (not to mention superior brakes and shocks). Just look at the FFR replica. It may be the best performing Cobra replica made (depending on engine specifications), although it may not be the most desireable.
The magazine article had the right idea, if only to compare differences.

[Dangerous Doug]

I'm sorry, did you say the FFR Replica is the best performing Cobra replica???

That explains the wild side skip I observed an FFR do on a nothing turn over a nothing pothole on CA-17 one day.

You're kidding, right? Like the New Yorker Obama cover is supposed to be like a skit on The Colbert Report? Not to be taking seriously, but said with a straight face...

[Jamo]

.............ahem

[ZOERA-SC7XX]

If I'm not mistaken, they race those things in a spec series. I think you'd be hard-pressed to run with those guys.

[TButtrick]