Misconceptions

[mrmustang]

Originally Posted by 4pipes

Evan, does your wheat have any Kirkham DNA?

Originally Posted by REAL 1

Kirkam's are not included in my definition of chaff.

Is that because you are driving one with a CSX number plate attached to it

[Bernica]

This thread just keeps grinding on!

I for one am grateful for what I have and never try to misrepresent it. It is what it is and doesn't try to be anything else...a CSX4000 glass car.
But I have heard my share of misconceptions. I always just listen and be polite.

I have been told the following at a few events:

That's really an AC. (no, it's not)
That's a Mustang with a Kit body (no, it's not)
The real originals were made of steel before aluminum (no, they weren't)
It's not a slab-side, so it's a kit car (no, not true)
You don't have leaf springs, so it's not real (well...)
The 427's were a big failure and took Shelby down (ok, you go with that)
They didn't have disc brakes back then (well, yes they did)
If it was real, it would have a gas cap in the center (OK, thanks)
If it was real, it would be in light blue or red (OK, thanks)

The list goes on and it's usually someone trying to show his wife or girlfriend how much they know about cars, so I just let them run.

The comments I get from folks like Gary Patterson (SAI) or Lance Stander (SPF) carry much more weight to me.

[Tim7139]

When in doubt, the good old free market tells you everything you need to know. There were a few real Cobras made in the 60's worth serious money and then there are countless versions of "not". I don't care if it' made from glass, carbon, alloy or tarpaper or whose bull**** rationalization of " after the fact, it's in the book" yada yada yada. You have a " not". If it was otherwise it would be valued much closer the original cars, call it a not plus or double plus.
There are nots, not minus', not plus' . And they will always be something other than what we may secretly wish them to be.
I have what I have, because, more than anything else, it captures the embodyment of what these cars were, now operationally better, all at a fair price, with a small dose of principle preservation( maybe) and they're kind of fun.
You want 4 wheel penis envy, buy a ferrari becauce unless you got a real bragging rights 1965 million dollar example, we're all, ALL, me included, in the somewhat shallow end of the pool here folks.

[jhv48]

I break owners down into these three categories:

1. The "Haves". They own original 60's era cobras. Nuff said!

2. The "Wannabes". They couldn't afford an original so they bought some kind of replica and try to pass it off as something it isn't and never will be. You are in this category if you are continually trying to convince others that yours is better than theirs for whatever reason.

3. The "Rest of Us". Who could give a rats ass who built your car or when it was made. We appreciate them all. But we REALLY appreciate an original.

[REAL 1]

Originally Posted by jhv48

I break owners down into these three categories:

1. The "Haves". They own original 60's era cobras. Nuff said!

2. The "Wannabes". They couldn't afford an original so they bought some kind of replica and try to pass it off as something it isn't and never will be. You are in this category if you are continually trying to convince others that yours is better than theirs for whatever reason.

3. The "Rest of Us". Who could give a rats ass who built your car or when it was made. We appreciate them all. But we REALLY appreciate an original.

See this is another shining example. That's your breakdown not mine. By your logic my 2012 Boss 302 LS is not a real Boss 302 since it wasn't made in the 60's. Oh, and my 2005 Ford GT is not a real Ford GT since it wasn't made in the 60's (please note the GT40 was always officially known as the Ford GT not its popularly known reference as the GT40).

Anyway, here's my breakdown.

1. The "Haves". Owners of original Shelby Cobras and Continuation Shelby Cobras.

2. Those that own copies of Shelby Cobras.

3. ...actually I don't have a #3.

Cheers,

[cycleguy55]

Originally Posted by REAL 1

Anyway, here's my breakdown.

1. The "Haves". Owners of original Shelby Cobras and Continuation Shelby Cobras.

2. Those that own copies of Shelby Cobras.

3. ...actually I don't have a #3.

Cheers,

Your #2 (e.g. Wannabes) assumes those who don't own "original Shelby Cobras and/or Continuation Shelby Cobras" actually aspire to own one (or both).

As difficult as it may be to understand or accept, I'm sure there are many, perhaps the majority, who are plenty happy with their Superformance, Kirkham, ERA, BDR, etc. and who do not aspire to own a 'real Cobra' (your words, not mine).

A lid for every pot, I guess.

[Al G]

Originally Posted by cycleguy55

Your #2 (e.g. Wannabes) assumes those who don't own "original Shelby Cobras and/or Continuation Shelby Cobras" actually aspire to own one (or both).

As difficult as it may be to understand or accept, I'm sure there are many, perhaps the majority, who are plenty happy with their Superformance, Kirkham, ERA, BDR, etc. and who do not aspire to own a 'real Cobra' (your words, not mine).

A lid for every pot, I guess.

How does Evan imply his #2s aspire to be #1s? You seem to be reaching for something he didn't say.

[REAL 1]

Originally Posted by cycleguy55

Your #2 (e.g. Wannabes) assumes those who don't own "original Shelby Cobras and/or Continuation Shelby Cobras" actually aspire to own one (or both).

As difficult as it may be to understand or accept, I'm sure there are many, perhaps the majority, who are plenty happy with their Superformance, Kirkham, ERA, BDR, etc. and who do not aspire to own a 'real Cobra' (your words, not mine).

A lid for every pot, I guess.

Not assuming a single thing nor did what I say in any way intimate what you say my #2 assumes. It was a simple and concise statement. Like always the majority of non-Shelby owners start "assuming" what I meant and reading into what I say.

The fact that you are just as happy owning a non Shelby and see you car how you see it is once again, another example of what I have been repeating here. "Better" depends on one's definition of "better" or "just as good" I guess.

[jhv48]

Originally Posted by REAL 1

See this is another shining example. By your logic my 2012 Boss 302 LS is not a real Boss 302 since it wasn't made in the 60's. Oh, and my 2005 Ford GT is not a real Ford GT since it wasn't made in the 60's (please note the GT40 was always officially known as the Ford GT not its popularly known reference as the GT40.

Exactly my definition of a "WANNABE."

A "HAVE" would own originals of both of these cars.

[twobjshelbys]

Originally Posted by Bernica

This thread just keeps grinding on!

Don't worry, this one will soon die out and another one will rise like the Phoenix bird from the ashes to take its place.

[REAL 1]

Originally Posted by mrmustang

Is that because you are driving one with a CSX number plate attached to it

Correcto...and the Originals are ACs with a Shelby plate attached to it.