Real vs. Replica, Classic Motorsports Magazine Sept issue

[ken swart]

If you want to see documented high performance, check out Superformance in Car and Driver over the past few years, especially Oltoff's efforts in One Lap and
a supercar comparo a few years back

[Excaliber]

Just about any car once converted to 'race trim' can go out and kick butt. I think the test here was with a fairly typical SPF, like you might find anywhere in the country. As opposed to a 'ringer', which a race preped FFR would be, or a race preped BDR, etc.

At any rate, I think the test itself makes for some interesting reading, but I wouldn't take it to seriously beyond that, just good fun with a couple of good cars. If theres ever a 'next time' perhaps an original Comp car, close to as delivered from the factory spec, compared to a typical SPF tweaked to maximize performance. NOT a 'ringer' you see, but a good solid well built and sorted out SPF. Hal Copple's car to mind, very typical spec SPF, race proven and yet a 'daily driver'.

Wait, were the Comp cars EVER driven as 'daily drivers' or were they strictly used as 'race cars'? Bear in mind 'back in the day' you would drive your GT-350, or Cobra, to work and park it on the street, in the rain even, and not think twice about it. In that time frame there were just 'cool cars' and had not yet acquired the lofty position they hold now.

[ken swart]

I have to submit at least 10 characters to say "Amen"

[Russ Dickey]

Originally Posted by mrmustang

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.

Bill:
I wish I had the capital to do this. I think it would make for a great guide-type book (and accompanying website). Nothing against Curt Scott's current guide, but I've always felt like his is really more of place for the kit companies just to place advertisements.

My "guide" would not only compare each replica to the original in terms of authenticity and performance, but it would allow future replica buyers the ability to compare replica vs. replica. The detailed impressions and feedback of the actual builds, the amount of work that had to go into each, how good (or bad) the assembly manual was, how much support was available from the manufacturer, etc., would really help to answer the majority of questions that new buyers have when getting into one of these.

Of course, I probably wouldn't sell enough copies to make it worth it. Maybe it should just be a website....

[RACERAL]

Originally Posted by Jim Maxwell

Al, You never knew it, but you almost ended up on the cover. I was going to suggest to Tim Suddard that he use your Factory Five when the plan was to meet at VIR. Unfortunately, that never happened due to scheduling conflicts. Of course, I wouldn't have won that comparison either!

The more I read, the more I liked your like your first idea Jim...

[mrmustang]

Originally Posted by Russ Dickey

Bill:
I wish I had the capital to do this. I think it would make for a great guide-type book (and accompanying website). Nothing against Curt Scott's current guide, but I've always felt like his is really more of place for the kit companies just to place advertisements.

My "guide" would not only compare each replica to the original in terms of authenticity and performance, but it would allow future replica buyers the ability to compare replica vs. replica. The detailed impressions and feedback of the actual builds, the amount of work that had to go into each, how good (or bad) the assembly manual was, how much support was available from the manufacturer, etc., would really help to answer the majority of questions that new buyers have when getting into one of these.

Of course, I probably wouldn't sell enough copies to make it worth it. Maybe it should just be a website....

Russ,

I know what you mean in regards to the funds, it's tough out there right now. However, when you (or anyone else) is ready, I've got the connections to get the cars built. Perhaps one of the kit car magazines would pony up some of the costs, perhaps one of the larger automotive publications would take on this challenge. Unless you and I ask, we may never know. So once again, I'm game when the time comes.

Until then, here is wishing you well.

Sincerely,

Bill S.

[Buzz]

Why bother to get cars and engines built for a one-off comparo? Surely out of the thousands of replicas out there, there will be enough examples that are "close enough" to a broadly defined spec to make it meaningful. The average joe Cobra owner or prospective buyer could easily understand the variations in straight line speed based on what's under the hood. What will be most telling are things like handling, braking, ride, and the ever-subjective "feel" that is influenced by chassis design and quality of engineering. If someone wants to know the answer to which Cobra is fastest, the answer is easy: its the one with the meanest engine.

Simplistic - yes I know - but straight line performance is such a variable thing in a type of car where no two drivetrains are exactly alike that I don't see any sense in going through a bunch of expense for a comparison that would essentially mean nothing. The logistics of gathering the cars, organising the test and compiling the data will be enough of a challenge. If it also has to depend on cars and engines being purpose built, I can almost promise you it will never happen. Great intentions and all, but...

Use existing cars and rate them on the things that are relative constants within each brand and therefore come up with relevant data that someone can reference. If one car in the comparison is not fast enough, and all else is satisfactory, then the buyer simply needs to spec his engine, gearing, etc accordingly.

In principle, though, I love the idea of a head to head comparison between replicas that includes an evaluation against a benchmark original car.

[CobraEd]

In the past, I have seen some magazines do a "shootout" with about five or so cars. I would love to see this done where they test accelleration, slalom, lateral g's, braking, and road course times. then write it all up with general comments and opinions from the drivers along with specific charts and graphs at the end.

They could compare an original 427, an orginal 289, a Superformance 460, a FFR fuel injected 5.0, a Kirkham smallblock 427 stroker, and say an Excaliber or Classic Roadsters with a 351.


I think that would be really cool!

.

[Dangerous Doug]

I think there was a Car&Driver "shootout" a couple of years back of several high-performance sports cars, Cobra replicas and a Beck Lister-Corvette.

The Lister-Corvette showed all others the way home.

Anyone else remember this issue? If it wasn't a Cobra, it'd be a Lister-Corvette or Lister-Jaguar for me.

DD

[tkb289]

Just read the Replica vs. Real comparison, interesting reading. Based on the motor horsepower ratings alone, it's not surprising the Replica was faster. I think the gist of the article was, with 40 years of technology, a 'modern' equivalent of an old school car will likely be faster and perhaps 'safer' and easier to drive. But ... not necessarily 'better' that the original ... same but different if that makes sense.

To Doug's query about a Car and Driver article on Listers (have not found the article just yet) ... I went looking through my back issues and came upon another interesting Cobra comparison not mentioned in this thread, but probably well known to Kirkham enthusiasts in CC.

The article is 'Cobra vs. Copy' (Car and Driver, June 1998) by Patrick Bedard. They compare a Kirkham 427 S/C with the Kirkham family's Shelby CSX3104 ( powered by ... " a pure racing tunnel-port 427 in place of the original" ). The overall performance numbers were close, but more interesting were the comments. In essence, the conclusion was that the 'Copy' did a good job in matching the original in a wide range of categories. More importantly however, it captured a lot the the character and feel of the original. I think it's the raw look and feel of the original cars that makes them so special in the first place. It's the same raw look and feel from replica cars, that make them so appealing to own and experience, at a fraction of the cost of an original.

- Tim B.

[Jim Maxwell]

Classic Motorsports is published every other month, so that is why the July issue is still on the stands when the September issue is mailed to subscribers. I expect the new issue will be in the news stands shortly.
My impression of the article was that Tim Suddard was trying to compare the essence of the two cars, not the actual 0-60 performance, etc. and to provide those unfamiliar with the originals and the replicas some sense of each and why someone would chose one over the other.
I, too, would find a road test comparison of the various replicas vs. originals to be interesting, but there is so much variation between each individual handcrafted car that an accurate, reproducible test would be impossible, I suspect.
More importantly for many readers who have never had and will never have a Cobra of any kind, the article was entertaining reading for any car geek. Why do most of us read car magazines from cover to cover about cars we will never own or drive? For entertainment, to be Walter Mitty for a few minutes, vicariously experiencing the thrills, the frustrations, the pain and the joys of driving and riding in these wonderful speedships.
I think Tim succeeded very well in providing that insight and that entertainment and probably got a few folks fired up to try a Cobra on for size!

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Russ Dickey

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.

Nice fantasy.

There has already been several "cobra comparison" tests, comparing different replica's. If they all have the same driveline, then I would think straight line performance will be very similar, the lighter car wins. With the same driver, driveline, I would think you're not only testing suspension/chassis design, but also chassis set-up.

From my memory, one magazine, maybe car and driver, did a comparison of several different cobra's, ERA (roy allen), Herb Adams VSE (matt adams), and I think a classic roadsters, and maybe Contemporary?

By participating in this, I would think the replica manufacturers have more to lose than gain. There will be one winner and 5 losers. I think each replica manufacturer fits a niche, and comparing their performance characteristics may not be beneficial to their sales, that is concerning the losers. I think it's best for individuals to decide for themselves which cobra may be the best for them based on price, convenience, design, i.e., weighing all the pro's and cons.

What I think would be a better comparison would be that of the engine builders, buying crate engines, and see how they really perform, or last, with a good running on the dyno. KeithCraft, Gessford, FE specialties, Southern Automotive, etc. However, I don;t think the engine builders would really want this comparison either.

[1ntCobra]

I read the article last night.

On the first page, it says something like only 6 of the 7 coupes are know to still exist. I assume the 7th coupe must be the 427 coupe. Does the author still think that 2287 is missing?

There was another article on replica manufacturers. It seemed that most of the manufacturers that they choose were also one that advertised in the magazine. Hmm...
Shelby was not listed among the manufacturers. But Factory Five, ERA, Superformance and Kirkham were listed.

[McD00]

I just red the article. It wasnt a fair comparison...I mean how can a FE ever hold a candle to a aluminum 427 small block?

McVette