Whats CSX1001 Value? (Your Opinion) - Page 3

ENTDOC · #1 (**permalink**) 09-23-2008, 06:54 AM

BDR makes a coupe?

RodKnock · #2 (**permalink**) 09-23-2008, 08:59 AM

So, let me understand, since Kirkham has recently supplied aluminum bodies to Shelby (though they're not the only supplier), you're saying that the quality of the AC body exceeds the quality of the Kirkham supplied Shelby CSX4000's and therefore, CSX1001 with an AC body is better and more valuable than a Kirkham bodied CSX4000?

I didn't understand the logic before, but now I do, assuming I have it right. Personally, I have no idea if one body is better than the other, I'm no expert, but I would refer you to Trevor's post above. Does the AC body use the thicker aluminum like the Kirkham body?

At any rate, CSX1001 has much more value to me than a CSX4000 series because of the number (being #1), fewer built than the 4000 series, and having Shelby in the title mix, etc.

FatBoy · #3 (**permalink**) 09-23-2008, 09:11 AM

I can assure you that in no way are the AC bodies superior to the Kirkham bodies.
I have an unpainted Kirkham and you just couldn't do that with an AC body without a huge amount of very skilled work to get all the imperfections ironed out.

1ntCobra · #4 (**permalink**) 09-23-2008, 09:32 AM

There is an old thread that discusses the differences between the CSX 1000 series and the aluminum CSX 4000 series.

CSX1000 vs CSX4000

It is interesting that Ron noticed that the CSX 1000 trunk is more accurate than the Kirkham trunk. I think this all boils down to using the original trunk buck makes the CSX 1000 more valuable!

In case you missed the smileys above, I'm kidding!

1985 CCX · #5 (**permalink**) 09-23-2008, 09:45 AM

Tell me, did they use the original hammers to pound out the bodies?

FatBoy · #6 (**permalink**) 09-23-2008, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1985 CCX

Tell me, did they use the original hammers to pound out the bodies?

They did, but they've since had numerous new handles and heads.

1ntCobra · #7 (**permalink**) 09-23-2008, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1985 CCX

Tell me, did they use the original hammers to pound out the bodies?

Do you think Alan would have bought new hammers? Well maybe if he found some new investors, he could have afforded some. On the other hand, if he was using hammers left over the Angliss days, Alan probably would not know any different and claim they were the original hammers.

1ntCobra · #8 (**permalink**) 09-23-2008, 10:00 AM

Trevor,

Did Alan manage to get the tooling out of Malta and over to Brooklands? If so, maybe you should stop over there and take some pictures of the what they have.

Ron61 · #9 (**permalink**) 09-23-2008, 10:02 AM

I am posting these for CSX1001. Gary, the pictures that you sent me were almost small enough to put in as attachments but I put them in my gallery and will link them to the post. If you couldn't get them to upload to your gallery, you must have done something wrong. Maybe ask Jamo or CW to take a look and see if you have a problem with your uploading feature.

Ron

FatBoy · #10 (**permalink**) 09-23-2008, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1ntCobra

It is interesting that Ron noticed that the CSX 1000 trunk is more accurate than the Kirkham trunk. I think this all boils down to using the original trunk buck makes the CSX 1000 more valuable!

I must have missed that comment as I don't recall reading that on this thread.

1ntCobra · #11 (**permalink**) 09-23-2008, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FatBoy

I must have missed that comment as I don't recall reading that on this thread.

Click on the link below to take you to the other thread.

CSX1000 vs CSX4000

RodKnock · #12 (**permalink**) 09-23-2008, 09:27 AM

FatBoy, again, I have no idea. There are many knowledgable people on this Forum that can expand on the subject, I just didn't understand how Kirkham was injected into the thread, but I think I know now.

I also have a polished Kirkham. Looks awesome to me, but what do I know.

1ntCobra · #13 (**permalink**) 09-23-2008, 10:26 AM

Ron61,

I could not see the pictures in your post, but looked in your gallery instead.

The buck way up in the air appears to have a mustache, which would not be the 427 buck. The other buck appears to be the 289 buck.

Ron61 · #14 (**permalink**) 09-23-2008, 10:28 AM

1ntCobra,

I have no problem seeing them in the post. Do you see anything at all such as just a red x?

Ron

BossCER · #15 (**permalink**) 09-23-2008, 10:38 AM

Red x here Ron

Ron61 · #16 (**permalink**) 09-23-2008, 10:50 AM

Ok, my bad. I think you can see them now. For some reason I had two pictures of each in my gallery and naturally I deleted the ones that I used for the post. I just edited the post and got the URLs for the ones that are still in my gallery. Sorry for the goof. Old age fart I guess.

Ron

mrmustang · #17 (**permalink**) 09-23-2008, 11:31 AM

I can tell you from the pictures that the rear buck is not a 60's original piece:

twobjshelbys · #18 (**permalink**) 12-10-2010, 12:48 PM

This question will be answered soon.

CSX1001 up for auction in Jan 2011

Excaliber · #19 (**permalink**) 12-10-2010, 03:56 PM

Stated earlier in this thread, it's a

Quote:

...factory built Genuine AC Shelby Cobra.

OK,,, whatever that means. A bit of a head scratcher, like ALL "replicas" it needs qaulification, expression, debate and passion to figure out exactly what it means.

twobjshelbys · #20 (**permalink**) 12-10-2010, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Excaliber

Stated earlier in this thread, it's a

OK,,, whatever that means. A bit of a head scratcher, like ALL "replicas" it needs qaulification, expression, debate and passion to figure out exactly what it means.

Oh no, not again. Haven't we beaten this dead horse enough?