Real world CSX4000 comparison

[REAL 1]

Avanti 176: Well put.

[rdorman]

Avanti, you have decoded the secret message! You can now be a member of the Little Orphan Annie Secret Society

Rick

ps, Jif is better :P

[mikiec]

TC

FFR is around 3500 cars

SPF about 1700

This is based on their numbering system.

Mike

[ToyCollector]

Rick and Al,

I have gone out of my way to not make any of my posts and us vs. them posture. I simply want to accomplish two things:

1. Point out that each method of sales has it's merits. I don't care if you are selling Cobras, toasters, stereo equipment, but I did want to highlight some manufacturers as examples, and only with that intent.

2. I also figure if I blah blah blah enough, the thread will become so boring people will either go away, or forget what the whole thing is about

How am I doing?

[Excaliber]

FFR is a success and doesn't even have "dealers". Must be the product!

Maybe SPF is a success BECAUSE of their "dealers" and it has less to do with their product?

You know those car sales guys can sell an Eskimo a freezer!

Maybe SAI doesn't NEED a strong dealership? With a good product the buyers WILL find them.

Ernie

[Turk]

Harley Davidson sells well through their dealer network. They sell VERY WELL.

Arlin Ness sells direct, so does Jesse James.

I can't tell which is a better bike, which one isn't, based on the method of selling.
Can you?

I realize SPF has done great selling through their dealers and distributors. They have a good one. The numbers are there to support the dealers.

It is very difficult for ERA or Kirkham or any limited production folks to maintain a dealer network and keep everyone happy.
Can you imagine ERA with their 50 a year or so production being able to support a large dealer body?

How good a dealer can anyone be, if you are selling two or three cars a year?

TURK

[computerworks]

Ernie... any distribution channel has a variety of reasons for tiers.

FFR sells a basic kit of parts designed for the hobbyist to complete with skill...for them the direct model is a good match. Little margin to support a dealer, and little opportunity for a dealer to add value to achieve sufficient margin. (...other than a turn key builder).

SPF sells a product way up the "completion-channel", at a higher price, geared more for the "end-user". Higher selling price, sufficient margins for a dealer network to work face-to-face with the end-user and facilitate a completed car.

Different products, different target markets, different selling models.

[Chaplin]

SPF and FFR are both a success because of what they are and what they do well. FFR is a great product at a great price that allows a lot of people who may have more skill than money or who simply want to say they "built" their car to build the car of their dreams. FFR has made the dream of a Cobra available to the masses. SPF, on the other hand, for considerably more money will provide you with a painted roller with excellent fit and finish ready to go. In one weekend you could drop the motor in and be driving a car that is finished to a level of quality beyond what most people could accomplish on their own. They are both great products aimed at different segments of the market. And they both do very well in their segment.

[Excaliber]

,,,,,I gotta find my pills. I guess the whole SPF thing is just starting to grate on me a little (dealers and all), LOL.

Ernie

[ToyCollector]

Chaplin, I am glad to know some of us are not alone. Your observations are spot on in my mind.

[Anthony]

"REAL" differences between a spf and a glass CSX4000

In my opinion, the spf has been engineered with more off-the-shelf parts to make the car cheaper to produce. The T-Bird 8.8 rear, brakes, half-shaft design, suspension design, are cheaper than original spec parts. The rectangular frame is likely easier to work with, Sure, you get a top, tonneau, heater/defroster as standard. My buddies spf has a cheaper made latch gas cap, without the roller as on my shelby. The pedals are mounted on the top of the foot box.

With the glass CSX4000, you get a car with an original spec round tube frame, thats harder to work/weld to (more expensive to make). All the suspension parts are original spec, or very close to it. The early LV glass cars had the original solid disc girling brakes (expensive). The CAV/CSX4000 cars I believe come with vented disc breaks, cheaper but higher performance. The diff is an original spec aluminum dana 44, with the correct half shafts and suspension pieces. The pedal box is mounted under the foot box, just like the originals. Yes, a top, tonneau, heater are extra.

The CSX4000 has always come standard with, and I think the spf now comes with pin drive wheels. The CSX4000's are Trigo's, and I think the spf makes their own. The CSX4000 car comes with a fuel cell, with a roll over valve, where I think that is extra on the spf. The CSX4000 comes with two trunk mounted electric fuel pumps. The CAV/CSX4000 comes standard with leather, and I'm not sure what the spf comes with. The CSX4000 comes with a drive shaft loop.

There are other differences, but I can't think of them now.

[decooney]

It's a good thing they aren't all the same.

...what would anyone have to talk about then?

[Hal Copple]

Can't comment on the Shelby cars, i have not seen one for several years, but the ones i used to see at the Auto Shows were indeed very nicely finished.

A few notes: SPF used a steel wheel with "hubcaps" early on, have used pin drive wheels (Trigo or SPF) for about 5 years. My '00 vintage SPF has a drive shaft loop. SPF's have always had full leather seats, even the backs of the seats are leather. The 8.8 is simple, effective, and reliable. Has double A arm suspension both ends. Now with coil over Bilsteins, Wilwoods. Vented discs. Fuel pumps are mechanical or electric, depending on the customers wishes. Puller, ducted twin radiator fans. Have heaters as standard. Fuel tank is baffled stainess steel. Inner panels of hood and trunk are fully finished. Offered with a variety of engines and usually have 5 or 6 speed Tremec's. Inner panels in engine compartment are fully finished.

of course, many of these things are also on the Shelby cars, i presume.

A question, thought. I always thought "real cobra's" used a version of the Jag rear end, with quad shocks. Is that just what some of the replica's use, like ERA??

[Mark IV]

..the "original" Cobras (427 MK III models) had single, coil over type shocks in the rear and a cast iron Salisbury differential (uses Dana 44 gears) as original. The original (?) replicas used the Jag setup as it was effective and much cheaper than fabricating replica uprights not ot mention being available at the local "Mean-Dog" boneyard.... The Cobra had upper and lower "A" arms where the Jag uses the halfshaft as the upper link. Also the Jag has inboard brakes. The jag also had a version of the Salisbury center section.

My understanding of the SPF design intention was to offer an independant rear end using cost effective, proven components. I would guess (and this is just MHO) that were Ford and Shelby designing the 427 today they might well have done the same...no need to "re-invent" the wheel.

Which is better? They both have design drawbacks that are required due to the packaging of the car. The original Klaus Arning/computer design for the MK III rear suspension had better geometry but one small drawback...the fron pivot point of the forward lower arm would have been mounted in the drivers pelvic region. I would assume that Hal can confirm that would not be conducive to good driver health...!

Common guys, play nice, share your toys and remember to take naps....

Rick

[rdorman]

You can do no evil. I have seen your garage. May I live there?
Rick

[REAL 1]

Anthony: Your right in every respect.

In the end the CSX and SPF are too very differenct cars. While the SPF is a very nice product the CSX has been engineered to original respect in nearly every detail while the SPF is utilzes more off the shelf components for economy and ease of build and has a chasis that does not even resemble the Cobra chasis.

The CSX is more expensive to make. Its more expensive to buy. Period.

Two different worlds.

[Tom T.]

Mark IV,

Thanks for the cool, calm, delivery of useful information. Refreshing, to say the least.

TT

[Mark IV]

..."My head doth swell, and proudly so!!!!!"


Ten points for anyone who can tell me what TV show and episide that quote came from?


If we behaved in school like we do on this site in first grade,we would be sent to see principal Skinner on a daily basis....

"no honest teacher, I gotta go number two..."

(I always wondered, what business of the teacher was what your bowel/bladder habits were?)


Rick:

[Richard Hudgins]

Originally posted by REAL 1


The CSX is more expensive to make. Its more expensive to buy. Period.

Two different worlds.

Real1,

I think that if you did a time study on the build of a CSX round tube chassis and the SPF rectangle/square tube chassis you might be quite surprised.

The CSX round tube chassis's are extremely simple to build just like the SPF R/S tube chassis's are.

Now, the alloy bodied cars with the body substructure tubes would quite a pain and very time consuming to build.

But, if you are talking glass car to glass car, I doubt there is very much difference in build time for a equal quality of construction.

Therefore, the only major difference in cost would be the uprights, halfshafts, brakes, and rear center section. (not counting interior bits etc.)

The rest of the components are pretty standard bits, and I am sure that Shelby gets as good a deal from their suppliers as SPF does. (Are not the production numbers similar between the two makes?)

[BANDIT 1]

Richard:

What style chassis are in the JBL cars, round or square?

According to my drag race buddies, while any chassis can be made strong, the "square style" chassis is the prefered chassis. I personally haven't seen ANY round tube chassis cars come through any of my friends shops in years (All of the cars they are building chassis for are ALL square tube. Doesn't matter if it's a Chevelle, Corvette, Mustang, Torino, GTO, Ford/Chevy/Dodge pickup, etc...).

According to the "experts" on this forum, the square tube chassis is not as good as the round tube and Superformance chose it because they didn't want to spend more for the "ultra" chassis, the 35 year old "original" round style.