Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaplin
Yup, I'd go ERA all day every day too, but then again I am a little biased having owned my ERA 427 since 2003. My ERA has been flawless since day one.
ERA has a well-earned reputation in the market for a reason. They make a fantastic product and their customer service is second to none.
I haven't seen the SPF sladside in person, but I am sure it is nice. But I guess my question is this:
Since it is a replica, is the original buggy style suspension of the SPF really a selling point?
IMO, I'd rather have a well built, well engineered car that visually looks like the real thing but with the best possible suspension under it The ERA will be a better driving and handling car because it doesn't have a buggy style suspension.
At the end of the day, no one is going to look at your replica slabside and say "Gee, that's a beautiful, well built car that handles and drives great, but too bad it doesn't have the buggy suspension on it."
But some people are OCD when it comes to originality of their replicas (and we shall not mention their names here). I guess the question for the OP is this: Is having a car with an original style suspension more important than having a car with better suspension and handling? If the answer is yes, then the ERA is not the car for you.
|
I have already crossed this "originality" bridge before when restoring (restomodding) my Lotus. I took a "time-capsule" original car (original owner of 52 years) and upgraded the car throughout including suspension, engine, transmission, etc. Many would howl at this in that I did not heed the mantra: "the car is only original once". But, my goal was to make the car that much more enjoyable, better looking, and with enhanced performance. But, still true to the original.
The difference I suppose with my Lotus and the discussion here on building Cobra replicas is that most everything I did was done with a period correct modification (usually borrowed from the racing Lotus 26R). So, no third party parts (except for what Lotus originally borrowed from). Except for the upgraded "racing" parts, the car is largely still original (body, no flares, original interior, ...). So, the car while not original, as delivered to me at the factory, it is still "correct".
In any event, I take your point about having a more modern and better performing suspension with ERA. I can see a possible advantage to the ERA in this respect. However, this fact alone is probably not a deal breaker either way at the moment in my thinking between SPF and ERA.
What is coming to the forefront, after reading through the extensive ERA manual, is the attention to detail and level of support provided by ERA. When I embarked on my research into building a Cobra one of my objectives was to have a "project" as a follow-on to the extensive restoration and recent "completion" of the Lotus. I like the idea of being able to build the ERA and be familiar with its construction just as I have done with the Lotus. The ERA seems to “feed” my hobby in more depth than the turnkey-minus SPF might. A lot of potential owners probably just want to get their car and drive it. While I also look forward to the driving, it is the process that is also very important.
On the Lotus I know the car intimately, throughout. Not only useful for maintaining and repairing the car on my own but also providing a great sense of satisfaction that the car has been rebuilt by me.
I have an near-term rendezvous with a local ERA FIA owner that will further inform my looming decision.
93Likes
Threaded Mode
