FFR MK4 . Some great new additions - Page 2

Don DePontee · #1 (**permalink**) 01-31-2010, 04:56 PM

The photo of the car on the forklift doesn't do it justice, here is a better shot from a different angle.

Summary of Mk4 Changes and Upgrades:

All-New Vintage Roadster Body

Original style one-piece hood with separate rivet-on hood scoop
Rounded rear trunk and concealed trunk hinges
Rolled-edges on cockpit surround and inset dash
Revised doors, door liners, hood, hood liner, trunk and trunk liner
Vintage style 1.5” roll bar design that is still safe
Concealed body mount bolts at front brake duct and side body mounts
Re-shaped wheel openings
Lowered rear body conceals fuel tank
Re-shaped nose detail and revised radiator/oil cooler opening
All-new molds and standard red gel-coated body requires less bodywork
Upgraded Mk4 Frame/Chassis

New flush front bumper mounts with concealed body mount fasteners
Round tube front suspension x-member
Improved front suspension geometry, new spindles
Improved over-all torsional rigidity
Bolt-in rear suspensions allow 4-link and 3-link interchangeability
Enlarged driver AND passenger footboxes
Relocated seat harness mounts
Mid-trunk battery location
Revised cockpit aluminum (upper and lower rear cockpit pieces)
Lowered trunk area and fuel tank access panels
Other Changes/Upgrades:
Focus on cockpit space for driver and passenger includes new seat for bigger guys, more footbox space for driver and passenger (!)
New radiator overflow tank
New optional soft top
All-new complete kit Mk4 assembly manual and electronic PDF version system with lifetime tech updates via e-mail
Don

decooney · #2 (**permalink**) 01-31-2010, 05:36 PM

Don,

Yeah, that bottom photo you posted shows a nice view of the rear shape. Also, the front mouth/opening shot looks good. Does anyone have any shots from the front with 15" wheels and tires on it? That would be another good one to post.

You're right on, until its sitting and settled at the correct ride height with a nice set of 15s on it, sure makes it hard to see or compare to the shape of Dick's car IF that's what people are thinking its a body shape copy of.

Some of us were just talking today wondering if it was suppose to be a digitized copy of Dick's car or not; or if perhaps a some of it is and parts of it are not, if that makes sense? If you confirm it, let us know. Someone I know is thinking about building one, once he can see the body in person.

lloyds1 · #3 (**permalink**) 01-31-2010, 06:16 PM

The roll bar still looks funky though. Why can't anyone except Kirkham get that right?

aks801 · #4 (**permalink**) 01-31-2010, 06:43 PM

This new version sure changes the game for me. With that new body shape and everything else it had going for it, it'll be hard to resist calling FFR come order time.

*13* · #5 (**permalink**) 01-31-2010, 06:52 PM

Exactly what stuck out to me also. ERA has it right also, far as I can tell. Maybe it's the photo but the car up on the lift seems to be flexy. Maybe they'll fix that horrid roll bar angle before production? Maybe the car is merely a roller minus?

Quote:

Originally Posted by lloyds1

The roll bar still looks funky though. Why can't anyone except Kirkham get that right?

Tim Brewer · #6 (**permalink**) 01-31-2010, 08:30 PM

The new FFR car looks great! I believe it to be as close to orginal as ANYONE'S replica is. I say that because there really isn't an exact shape to copy. There are many differences between original Cobra bodies if you look hard enough. I even have a picture of an original with the FFR perky butt trademark.

Buzz · #7 (**permalink**) 02-01-2010, 04:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Brewer

The new FFR car looks great! I believe it to be as close to orginal as ANYONE'S replica is. I say that because there really isn't an exact shape to copy. There are many differences between original Cobra bodies if you look hard enough. I even have a picture of an original with the FFR perky butt trademark.

Please post it then (along with csx#)! Now I may finally see the original car that the famous Contemporary body was splashed from!

Hexnut72 · #8 (**permalink**) 02-01-2010, 08:49 AM

It looks SO much better. It is still off quite a bit in spots but the truly terrible bits are gone/hidden. Did they do anything about the control arms so they won't break?

convincor · #9 (**permalink**) 02-01-2010, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hexnut72

Did they do anything about the control arms so they won't break?

When were there control arms breaking?

Hexnut72 · #10 (**permalink**) 02-01-2010, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by convincor

When were there control arms breaking?

Go to the "other" forum and do a search. Lots of examples.

convincor · #11 (**permalink**) 02-01-2010, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hexnut72

Go to the "other" forum and do a search. Lots of examples.

been on the "other" since 04 and never heard anything about control arms breaking. please show me an example..

franklin · #12 (**permalink**) 02-01-2010, 11:13 AM

The back does still look different than a Kirkham or others that have a closer to original shape. The sides by the doors still look pretty flat with no narrowing at the hips. This still makes the rear wheel wells look wrong. It will be fun to see one up close and personal. The body on my old FFR would also move around quite a bit and would make noises. I would like them see them find a better more secure way of securing the body to the chassis in more places.
JMHO

TButtrick · #13 (**permalink**) 02-02-2010, 04:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hexnut72

It looks SO much better. It is still off quite a bit in spots but the truly terrible bits are gone/hidden. Did they do anything about the control arms so they won't break?

huh? you post links to threads where it clearly states they've sourced new UCA's and you ask if they've done anything so the old ones won't break?

WTF? I'm sure FFR is hanging on your every comment.

Maricopa · #14 (**permalink**) 02-01-2010, 12:20 PM

He's thinking of the Bilstein shock debacle.....

Hexnut72 · #15 (**permalink**) 02-01-2010, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maricopa

He's thinking of the Bilstein shock debacle.....

No, this is not the shocks, this is the control arms. Do a search on UCA failure. It is a known issue that has happened at least as often percentage-wise as stuck Toyota throttles...

convincor · #16 (**permalink**) 02-01-2010, 12:44 PM

Ok, did the search. Got one hit were the builder over tightened the bolts and stripped the threads. As I said, show me some examples..

Maricopa · #17 (**permalink**) 02-01-2010, 12:59 PM

No there were some others, but not many. The vendor screwed up and when you greased them only part of the bearing got penetrated. Over time they froze up and snapped at the mount from the fatigue. Most people noticed the problem when they greased them the first time.

As far as I know it isn't a current issue.

Hexnut72 · #18 (**permalink**) 02-01-2010, 01:02 PM

http://www.ffcobra.com/forums/showthread.php?t=233500

http://www.ffcobra.com/forums/showthread.php?t=233740

Read the entire thread, there was a problem with the grooves missing from the control arms but others that had the grooves also had the issue.

Please check your suspension on a regular basis.

Kool-Aid is not a proper lubricant.

convincor · #19 (**permalink**) 02-01-2010, 01:37 PM

All i asked for was examples. I stop in there just about every day still and this is the first I heard of it. Thanks for the links.

Maricopa · #20 (**permalink**) 02-01-2010, 12:40 PM

OK sorry, you mean the UCAs that had the bad (or lack of a) channel in the bearing area so they didn't grease properly. How many were there exactly? That's pretty good math there re: the Toyota comparison.