CSX vs. Superformance Body Mold

[Buzz]

Actually the Superformance body (for their own SPF replicas) is based on the heavily altered and modified post 1983 Contemporary replica body, which was originally splashed off of CSX 3045. In '83 Contemporary sectioned and raised the rear of the body to compensate for a variance in the original heights of the fenders. They then had to lower and radius the rear wheel openings to compensate and close the gaps over and around the tires. Quite a few manufacturers copied the altered body shape in subscription to the fallacy that Contemporary was "the world's most accurate Cobra replica." That could have been true, but only before the unfortunate body modifications. As a result, one can see the flawed, arse-in-the-air DNA in brands like SPF, Everett Morrison and the previous generation FFR's.

SPF recognized this and made some attempts to mitigate the high-butt, chunky sided look but could only go so far with the existing chassis and packaging. The fiberglass Shelby bodies manufactured by the same company are based directly on an original CSX car and look completely different - lower, leaner and sleeker; with rounded rear fenders that the rear wheels actually fit into - as can clearly be seen in the photos posted above.

Edit: This is reflective of my personal preference for the original body shape and stance. There are many, many very beautiful and well built Cobras out there with the perky-butt shape and I'm sure their owners love them just the way they are. And let's not even go into the radically different looking Backdraft cars - these seem to be the hottest selling replicas nowadays - as newer (to the hobby) and younger owners who are unfamiliar with (and probably uninterested in) the particulars of the original shape - are the predominant buying demographic. If the hobby survives, who knows - that may well one day become the perceived standard for what a Cobra ought to look like.

[rodneym]

Those comparo pics are pretty awful.
A little bit of elevation really has an effect.
If the camera was placed the same distance at the same height, and preferable the same color and light, we'd be on to something.
The ERA looks more accurate than the Kirkham, and we know that's not the case.

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by rodneym

Those comparo pics are pretty awful.
A little bit of elevation really has an effect.
If the camera was placed the same distance at the same height, and preferable the same color and light, we'd be on to something.
The ERA looks more accurate than the Kirkham, and we know that's not the case.

Then you need to find a set of comparison photos on the Kirkham site.

[ERA 626]

Originally Posted by rodneym

Those comparo pics are pretty awful.
A little bit of elevation really has an effect.
If the camera was placed the same distance at the same height, and preferable the same color and light, we'd be on to something.
The ERA looks more accurate than the Kirkham, and we know that's not the case.

What Kirkham? there is no kirkham is those photos. If you claim my photos (yes I took them my self) are awful, then why dont you post some of yours? SMH

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by ERA 626

What Kirkham? there is no kirkham is those photos. If you claim my photos (yes I took them my self) are awful, then why dont you post some of yours? SMH

Now Mike, you know Rodney is barely a half step over a moron, but I think he might be referring to my post in which I included this link to the comparison photos. Compare car profiles

[rodneym]

Originally Posted by patrickt

Now Mike, you know Rodney is barely a half step over a moron, but I think he might be referring to my post in which I included this link to the comparison photos. Compare car profiles

Make that a quarter step.

If I send ERA a better pic of a KMP, will ERA hand crank their site and change it?

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by rodneym

Make that a quarter step.

If I send ERA a better pic of a KMP, will ERA hand crank their site and change it?

Only after artfully Photoshopping it to make it appear less attractive.

[strictlypersonl]

Originally Posted by patrickt

Only after artfully Photoshopping it to make it appear less attractive.

Busted.

[peterpjb]

Originally Posted by patrickt

Now Mike, you know Rodney is barely a half step over a moron, but I think he might be referring to my post in which I included this link to the comparison photos. Compare car profiles

I am sorry to say that, but to be able to compare minor body details and differences from pictures, the pictures should be made with exactly the same focus width, length and heights and, of course, from the same position, otherwise you can reason ...nothing...

[ERA 626]

Originally Posted by peterpjb

I am sorry to say that, but to be able to compare minor body details and differences from pictures, the pictures should be made with exactly the same focus width, length and heights and, of course, from the same position, otherwise you can reason ...nothing...

Huh? the differences between these 3 cars are obvious in the photos I posted, if you cant see them than perhaps you are not capable to know the difference between a SPF/CSX/ERA...

[peterpjb]

Originally Posted by ERA 626

Huh? the differences between these 3 cars are obvious in the photos I posted, if you cant see them than perhaps you are not capable to know the difference between a SPF/CSX/ERA...

yepp, the black one has wrong wheels 😉