FFR's new kit- 289 FIA/USRRC Roadster

[NewYorkGuy]

pictures and description from their website.

https://www.factoryfive.com/whats-ne...dster-replica/

[Don DePontee]

Here is a link to the photo gallery for the $21,990 FFR 289 FIA/USRRC complete kit:
https://www.factoryfive.com/gallerie...-beauty-shots/
Don

[SunDude]

Originally Posted by Don DePontee

Here is a link to the photo gallery for the $21,990 FFR 289 FIA/USRRC complete kit:
https://www.factoryfive.com/gallerie...-beauty-shots/
Don

Where did you get the pricing info? I didn't see it on the FFR website.

[LMH]

It looks pretty good! I wish they had angled the roll bar back a little and I hate that super tall shifter but it's fixable. Love the tires!
Larry

[Don DePontee]

Originally Posted by SunDude

Where did you get the pricing info? I didn't see it on the FFR website.

Scroll to the bottom of the 289 FIA page and click on ordering a kit and you will find it there. Here is a link to the page:
https://www.factoryfive.com/order-a-...ete-kit-21990/
Don

[mickmate]

That looks great! They have done a nice job.

[1985 CCX]

They did a great job!
If I were getting a FFR it would be a 289 car hands down.
Partial though as I am a 289 fan.......

Great work to all at FFR

[Don DePontee]

Side by Side comparison of the original (CSX-Two Two Six Zero) which is the one Dave Smith of Factory Five Racing cloned to build the new FFR 289 Roadster. You can see it's an incredibly correct execution, not 100% but damn close!
Side by side comparison, (CSX-Two Two Six Zero) on the left and FFR FIA on the right in all photos.













I think that you'll agree that this is an extremely nice offering for the 289 FIA market!
Don

[Bill D]

I wonder what they did for the fuel tank and trunk compartment

[LMH]

Dave Smith missed it by a mile! There's no Koni sticker on the original car!! You better tell him to get that right!
Larry

[Don DePontee]

Originally Posted by LMH

Dave Smith missed it by a mile! There's no Koni sticker on the original car!! You better tell him to get that right!
Larry

LOL I'll get right on that!
Don

[gmonsen]

Seems like a dead thread. I want to build a 289 style car and naturally have been considering ERA at the top and Unique right behind. However, the FF 289 car is really interesting for several reasons. First, they have become a very large and professional business. Second, the chassis and suspension design on all their current cars is probably far superior to what all the other companies are building. And they recognized that their massaged body designs for the original 427 style cars was off and they redesigned that and the new 289 body using computer technology to be exactly right. (They may have made the bodies look wrong to skirt Carroll Shelby's penchant back in the day for law suits...) The company's size and marketing allow them to bring the prices way down for really good quality cars, ignoring any issues of authenticity.

However, I have a few questions, if anybody is active in this area. The 289 car uses the 427 chassis, which is both good and bad. The good is that it's proven and works. The bad is -0- and this is a visual thing -- that I think the front wheels in particular are way too far out compared to the original and to the Unique and ERA similar 289 cars. I've been studying photos and that's what I think I see. Can somebody here tell me what they think?

I'm hoping to compare the 289 cars at Carlyle this May and make a decision then, but would love to hear anyone's thoughts.

Gordon

[1985 CCX]

Monson

I agree, 289 all the way....

Here is my rating of the field....

1) Shelby American, accurate and buggy spring original frame. (alloy and glass available)
2) KMS - Alloy in both original frame and 427 style.
3) Superformance (really a non-CSX labeled car)
4) HiTech if you can find one........
5) ERA FIA or Slab accurate look and very high quality
6) FFR, great frame missed some of the details I look for on the body. Due to frame engineering as the rockers are heavy and the base of the car wider than the top of the door. Changes the look dramatically for me.
7) UM
8) JCF
9) Aurora
10) CCX and the others

[MOTORHEAD]

The 289 chassis tube was 3", the 427 cars 4", plus the 427 frame was wider (4"wider ?, don't remember) as was the 427 body. To me, a 289 built on a 427 frame just doesn't look right, it's too wide. (sorry Kirkham )

[Three Peaks]

Does anyone else have a problem with the front strut of the roll bar intruding on the passenger compartment? I'm thinking if I built a 289 model, I would make it with a 427 style roll bar on it, regardless of originality.

I really like the FFR 289, but one thing that they do with their bodies that is just a deal killer for me is the rocker area below the doors is flat from the door lip to the bottom of the car, where the originals, and the Kirkham, ERA, etc... models wrap it around with a curved body shape. It makes a huge difference in how the car looks from just about any angle, IMHO. The rest of the car they did a great job on.

Bob

[Cobrakeith]

Originally Posted by Three Peaks

Does anyone else have a problem with the front strut of the roll bar intruding on the passenger compartment? I'm thinking if I built a 289 model, I would make it with a 427 style roll bar on it, regardless of originality.

Bob

Bob, I have a ERA 289 and the diagonal down bar on the car does not interfere with either the driver or passenger. I think it makes a good hand hold for the driver when getting in or out of the car though. I would suggest you try to find one and sit in it, you may find it is a non issue for you too.

Keith

[DanEC]

Originally Posted by Three Peaks

Does anyone else have a problem with the front strut of the roll bar intruding on the passenger compartment? I'm thinking if I built a 289 model, I would make it with a 427 style roll bar on it, regardless of originality.

I really like the FFR 289, but one thing that they do with their bodies that is just a deal killer for me is the rocker area below the doors is flat from the door lip to the bottom of the car, where the originals, and the Kirkham, ERA, etc... models wrap it around with a curved body shape. It makes a huge difference in how the car looks from just about any angle, IMHO. The rest of the car they did a great job on.

Bob

If you run the side pipe type exhaust that snugs up under the rocker like the car in the picture on the right (FFR?), the flat rocker line would be fine IMO. From pictures of original FIAs with this type exhaust I wonder if they didn't flatten the rocker bottom to suck the exhaust pipe up higher for more ground clearance anyway. They don't seem to have nearly as much belly roll in the rocker as the 289 roadsters with undercar exhaust.