Continuation CSX a "Kit car"?

[Excaliber]

Titling any MODERN Cobra (built after 1967 by other than AC/Shelby) as purely a 1965 is fraught with all kinds of potential problems and it has nothing to do with the car being a 'kit' or a 'continution' or whatever you want to call it. People HAVE gone to jail for doing it incorrectly, others are getting away with it, for the time being. The laws vary from state to state, but make no mistake, it's playing with fire. A MODERN 1965 Cobra titled as such in one state and sold in California as a 'real' 1965 could be a serious problem down the road.

Shelby's MSO, as I understand it, correctly identifies the car as a 1965 MODEL, which should not be confused with year of build. Likewise Hawaii law recognizes my Cobra as a 1965 MODEL, but the title also specifies it as a 'street rod' (Hawaii's way of saying 'modern replica').

[Excaliber]

Excellent point Sal, and NOT thread drift as I see it. The discussion as to titling, vin numbers, completition series, continuation series, kit vs factory and home builts are all part of the soup (or can of worms as the case may be).

Good question concerning HOW a fellow would secure the parts to build his own CSX in his own garage. In addition, how does it get titled and what vin would it use? Such details are not typically discussed on a public forum...

It will be interesting to see how the registrys handle this, Team Shelby registry and SAAC registry.

[Power Surge]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

Good question concerning HOW a fellow would secure the parts to build his own CSX in his own garage. In addition, how does it get titled and what vin would it use? Such details are not typically discussed on a public forum...

You can't "build your own CSX". If someone were to allocate some CSX "parts", turn them into a car, and add their own VIN, that would be an "air car". I know there are a few cars floating around with CSX bodies or chassis that came from rebuilds or swaps. I don't believe any of them are on the road yet, so I don't know "how" they are going to be VIN'd.

[fostereast]

One way to look at it is that in the sixties, Shelby sold CARS, now he sells PARTS. When you put them together, is it a Shelby? In my opinion, it's a home-made car using parts Shelby sold you, that affords you the opportunity to list it in various Shelby registries. Otherwise as far as I know, it's illegal to title/register it and drive it on any street in the USA.

[RedCSX1]

Incorrect: Remember that the Cobra roller which is a car without motor trans and drive shaft is only a small part of their business currently. They are also building GT500 and GT-350 with Ford just like they did in the 60's. I think currently the only other manufacturer that builds a more complete roller might be SPF.

[mrmustang]

Originally Posted by RedCSX1

Incorrect: Remember that the Cobra roller which is a car without motor trans and drive shaft is only a small part of their business currently. They are also building GT500 and GT-350 with Ford just like they did in the 60's. I think currently the only other manufacturer that builds a more complete roller might be SPF.

Well, yes, and no, in the 60's you could title (MSO, whatever) a Shelby right out of their shop, they sold (93% of the time) complete cars and as each year progressed they changed the year on their titles (or MSO's as the case may be).

Fast forward to 2008 where they cannot sell a turn key car directly from Shelby and as such cannot be considered a complete automobile, but instead can and usually is considered a "component vehicle" finished off by the end user or his agent. As for titles (MSO's), since they are now being reproduced in the present, shouldn't the titles (MSO's) read the year they are actually manufactured as to not misrepresent them for something they are not? If Shelby was just building a continuation of his original series (which he is), then don't you think they should be marketed as 2000-2008 Shelby Cobras instead of 1965 Shelby Cobras (as listed on their MSO's and literature)? Again it's more a marketing ploy than anything else, if you buy in to it, great, but do not expect everyone else to blindly follow along.

Bill S.

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by mrmustang

Again it's more a marketing ploy than anything else, if you buy in to it, great, but do not expect everyone else to blindly follow along.

Bill, some people just hate it when you jump on the truth....

[CSX 4039]

Originally Posted by patrickt

Bill, some people just hate it when you jump on the truth....

I think the '65 title thing started as a reaction to emission laws, not a marketing ploy. Generally, for most cars, I have no increased desire to by an older car than a newer model, if for no other reason then the older car has lower resale.

Just my $0.02

[RedCSX1]

Originally Posted by mrmustang

Well, yes, and no, in the 60's you could title (MSO, whatever) don't you think they should be marketed as 2000-2008 Shelby Cobras instead of 1965 Shelby Cobras (as listed on their MSO's and literature)? Again it's more a marketing ploy than anything else, if you buy in to it, great, but do not expect everyone else to blindly follow along.

Bill S.

Bill,
I have my Shelby Cobra listed or insured as a 2004 Shelby Cobra.
Several have confused it on paper as a Mustang Cobra.

[mrmustang]

Originally Posted by RedCSX1

Bill,
I have my Shelby Cobra listed or insured as a 2004 Shelby Cobra.
Several have confused it on paper as a Mustang Cobra.

Hey Morgan,

It really depends on the state the car is first titled in. Such states as Florida and Virginia title them as the year they replicate. States such as NJ/NY/PA/CA title them as the year they are first being titled (IE: 2008 for the current year)......However, when they are bought from SAI, the MSO's that I have seen list them as 1965's, when in fact they were produced just last year. Again the Shelby machine is doing a wonderful job of marketing them as "1965's", but the reality of it all is that they are not. Shelby does make a wonderful recreation of the original, there is no doubt about it, but to call them anything but "recreations" is a slap in the face to all of those who own original "built in the 60's" Cobras.......


Bill S.

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by mrmustang

but to call them anything but "recreations" is a slap in the face to all of those who own original "built in the 60's" Cobras.......

Bill S.

No Bill, they are real. Just as real as the $5 Rolex my youngest bought in Manhattan last month. Do I have to call that a "recreation time piece?"

[Power Surge]

Originally Posted by mrmustang

However, when they are bought from SAI, the MSO's that I have seen list them as 1965's, when in fact they were produced just last year. Again the Shelby machine is doing a wonderful job of marketing them as "1965's", but the reality of it all is that they are not..

Well now, wait a second... that's not entirely true. The Shelby MSO lists the MODEL of the car as a 1965 Cobra 427, but it ALSO states the date and year of manufacture. And it ALSO states that as as per that date, this is the first transfer of this vehicle from the manufacturer to public hands.

If you want to alter the facts and omit the rest of the MSO, then yes, they are marketing them as 1965 cars. But the actual MSO specifically states the date of manufacture and that the vehicle has not been seen public hands before that date.

[CSX 4039]

Originally Posted by mrmustang

Hey Morgan,

It really depends on the state the car is first titled in. Such states as Florida and Virginia title them as the year they replicate. States such as NJ/NY/PA/CA title them as the year they are first being titled (IE: 2008 for the current year)......However, when they are bought from SAI, the MSO's that I have seen list them as 1965's, when in fact they were produced just last year. Again the Shelby machine is doing a wonderful job of marketing them as "1965's", but the reality of it all is that they are not. Shelby does make a wonderful recreation of the original, there is no doubt about it, but to call them anything but "recreations" is a slap in the face to all of those who own original "built in the 60's" Cobras.......


Bill S.

SAAC itself call them "authentic" vs. "original".
Do you disagree with SAAC? (Which is made up largely of owners of "original" cars).

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

Titling any MODERN Cobra (built after 1967 by other than AC/Shelby) as purely a 1965 is fraught with all kinds of potential problems and it has nothing to do with the car being a 'kit' or a 'continution' or whatever you want to call it.

That's not true. It depends upon your state laws.

Originally Posted by fostereast

One way to look at it is that in the sixties, Shelby sold CARS, now he sells PARTS. When you put them together, is it a Shelby? In my opinion, it's a home-made car using parts Shelby sold you, that affords you the opportunity to list it in various Shelby registries. Otherwise as far as I know, it's illegal to title/register it and drive it on any street in the USA.

I know it is actually legal to own, register, and drive on the highways, I believe in every state.

I would say to you, don't buy one. You won;t be happy.

Originally Posted by fostereast

Shelby makes parts. He might fasten some parts together, but he does not make cars in a way that they are legally cars by today's standards.

I don't think Shelby is listed as a "Manufacturer" like Saleen so Shelby does not make cars. (I could be wrong about this and maybe Shelby is listed as a "Manufacturer")

As far as I know to title/register and inspect a component car in the USA it is not supposed to be manufactured by anyone other than yourself unless you bought it off a fellow that built it for himself and then sold it.

Keep in mind this is all my opinion and I am not trying to write this in an explosive fashion.

You are wrong about all of this. Shelby is a manufacturer. Ever heard of Series 1 cars? Sheby is like Saleen in a way. Both modify mustangs, and each has their own car, Series 1 vs S7. Shelby however also sells 1965 type Cobra's as well.

Originally Posted by mrmustang

--However, when they are bought from SAI, the MSO's that I have seen list them as 1965's, when in fact they were produced just last year. Again the Shelby machine is doing a wonderful job of marketing them as "1965's", but the reality of it all is that they are not. Shelby does make a wonderful recreation of the original, there is no doubt about it, but to call them anything but "recreations" is a slap in the face to all of those who own original "built in the 60's" Cobras..

It's not a marketing ploy. It's the market that is demanding original spec cobra's, CSX4000 vs Kirkhams. So the Kirkhams are a slap in the face as well? I don;t think it's a slap in the face for anybody. If anybody feels slighted, it's their own problem.

[fostereast]

Shelby makes parts. He might fasten some parts together, but he does not make cars in a way that they are legally cars by today's standards.

I don't think Shelby is listed as a "Manufacturer" like Saleen so Shelby does not make cars. (I could be wrong about this and maybe Shelby is listed as a "Manufacturer")

As far as I know to title/register and inspect a component car in the USA it is not supposed to be manufactured by anyone other than yourself unless you bought it off a fellow that built it for himself and then sold it. Of course this opens up a big gray area as to what "manufacture" means and if anyone really wanted to push the limits of the laws, we would probably find out that a lot of the businesses making complete rollers that only need engines and transmissions are not at all what the legislators were signing up for when approving these laws, and the bigger that part of the business gets, the more likely the rest of the hobby is to suffer in the long run.

Keep in mind this is all my opinion and I am not trying to write this in an explosive fashion.

[Got the Bug]

Originally Posted by mrmustang

Hey Morgan,

Shelby does make a wonderful recreation of the original, there is no doubt about it, but to call them anything but "recreations" is a slap in the face to all of those who own original "built in the 60's" Cobras.......


Bill S.

These threads are always a great read. "Is to, is not, is to, prove it, wanna fight."

It's kind of like die hard Republicans vs. die hard Democrats. You can talk until you're blue in the face, but you aren't going to move the other person to your side. Agree with Bill's comment 100%...and I would agree even if I owned a CSX car.

[Excaliber]

I don't think it's a 'marketing ploy' either, it's more like a statement of fact, the car is patterned after a 1965 Shelby Cobra. Hawaii law also will list the car as to what it REPRESENTS.

To call it a 2008 Cobra MODEL would be completely misleading.

[Jamo]

This thread underscores the basis for my comment in the other thread that it takes a treatise to assplain what a modern CSX is...

[Chaplain]

I think Mrmustang alluded to an important issue, and I apologize if I've misinterpreted his point.....if you bought the car to fulfill anybody elses dream but your own, then you may have made a poor choice regardless of the cars origin.

I think the best question I was ever asked was not "is it real", but "where do you take it to get it fixed"? When I told him, to my garage, I got the most satisfaction providing that answer than any other I've provided.

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by Chaplain

I think the best question I was ever asked was not "is it real", but "where do you take it to get it fixed"? When I told him, to my garage, I got the most satisfaction providing that answer than any other I've provided.

Well put. I had my ERA at a pretty big show this weekend and an old fellow had been looking under my car's rear. He then came up and said "I see you have an independent rear, looks like a Jag, but you don't have inboard brakes. How'd you do that?" I told him that was the best question anyone had asked me at a car show and then spent the next 20 minutes talking with him.