[craigayl]

Morgan

A few points…

First. “My evaluation, As I said, I really do think that the Super Performance….” It’s Superformance, not Super Performance
Next. “I currently think that the frame structure and suspension are better” Why is that? Do you see a disadvantage to the more rigid box frame structure?
Next. “Shelby will come with Baer brakes”. Do you have data that shows Baer to be better than Wildwood in a replica Cobra?
Next. “autometer guages are better quality than the Smith repo's”. First, the Smith’s are not repo’s, their original. As for quality, I’m not sure you can make that argument. You could argue new technology vs old, less expensive, more readily available etc., but the Smith’s were not selected for these reasons. These cars are “reproductions” and to some, the esthetics are very important.
Next. “The toe box will now be larger” I don’t know about others, but Superformance enlarged their foot well to accommodate tall drivers several rears ago.
Next. “Will come standard with leather seats”. Again, I can’t speak for others, but Superformance has always had leather as standard.
Next. “Again at 39,900, why wouldn't you choose the Shelby” I could just as easily ask the question “at 39,900, why “would” you choose a Shelby”.


The problem with trying to justify one replica vs another is you’re not taking into account the owner and what they want in or out of their car. The needs of the owner are as varied as manufactures themselves.

So, you chose the CSX. Fantastic! Freedom of choice is alive and well. Keep in mind, the same is true for the rest. It would be presumptuous for anyone to think they had the corner determining what is best for the rest.

We can debate pros and cons all day long on specifics. In fact, debate often brings new knowledge. But, on what is best? Best needs to be determined on an individual basis.

Craig